Trump Administration Orders Communications Blackout For US Scientists

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: Snarl
What's your opinion on my questioning from my last post? I'd love to hear from you in regards to it. Thanks.

An executive order is supposed to be about focusing activity on a specific law that's already on the books. The President doesn't get to make up law as he goes along. Remember that the SCOTUS had to shut 0bama down on multiple occasions because his EOs didn't pass the litmus test. President Trump hasn't 'gone there' yet.

I'll be glad to see him get past all this nonsense and see him start to focus on restoring the business capabilities of the country. I want to see factories and Industry and infrastructure and jobs and better living standards and paychecks that keep up with inflation ...

I like where he's gone this week. I like that he wasted no time. I like that he did it the right way. But, these things aren't what is going to #MAGA.

-Cheers

originally posted by: Skywatcher2011

originally posted by: UKTruth
Hopefully this means he is going to kill all the global warming fascism and start opening up the debate.

Time to bury Al Gore!

There's been so much bull# about this I can't even work out what it is supposed to be called anymore. I seem to recall it started off as Global Cooling in the 70's, then it was Global Warming and now a mixture of Climate Change and Global Warming.

The consensus claim has to be the funniest BS of all though.

Oh and Global Cooling seem to be making a comeback again .

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

See above.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: UKTruth

True but even through legislation the President is empowered to interpret the law differently than what originally intended:

Signing statements--official executive branch pronouncements made when the President signs a bill into law to assert his interpretation, raise any constitutional objections, and state his intentions regarding enforcement--are a manifestation of this phenomenon.1 Al-though signing statements originated in the Monroe Administration, (2) Presi-dents rarely used them as a policy tool before the mid-twentieth century. (3) Later, in the 1980s, signing statements became a staple of executive branch practice in the Reagan Administration and, since then, "have increasingly been utilized by Presidents to raise constitutional or interpretive objections to congressional enactments." (4) This phenomenon went largely unnoticed until the George W. Bush Administration. President Bush, while not deviating dramatically from his immediate predecessors in terms of the number of signing statements issued, challenged far more provisions of law with these statements, especially on constitutional grounds.

www.questia.com...

Executive orders and signing statements seem to give the President an awful amount of control don't you think?

Yes the President has a lot of power... more than any person on the face of the Earth.
That is why the job is the most important on Earth.

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

See above.

Oh you meant ABOVE above

duplicate

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker
a reply to: soficrow

Get ready for more post-truth alt-facts. Again.

Now that the replies have came in explaining why this is so, what have you got to say now?

Trying again.

We pay for publicly funded science - and it is just science. How politicians and other people might spin it is something else.

As far as "standard business practice" goes - the Big Boyz compete for Patents and Intellectual Property Rights, and demand full confidentiality. But WE pay for this research and so WE have a right to know what it is, and what the results are.

As far as other nations "stealing" our research results - gimme a break! For decades we paid for research with our tax dollars - then paid AGAIN because Big Pharma and other corporations took ownership. From us. For work that WE paid for! ...AND - for-profit corporations put their products on the open market for anyone to reverse engineer. Nobody, nowhere ever has any more than a 6 month head start. Red herring!




And yeah, I support Open Access. That's been on my avatar for almost 16 years. No secret. I think it's important. And I for sure do NOT support us paying for research to benefit for-profit corporations and not we-the-people.


~ sofi

a reply to: soficrow

There is a vast difference between telling the department that random employee A cannot post anything he or she wants about department business on his or her social accounts or social accounts connected to the official department business and a complete lockdown of all information from the department.

The former is what has occurred.

If you want to post about official business in most workplaces, your statements have to go by HR. And generally HR manages press releases and information dumps along with whatever PR and marketing you may have. This is FOIA requests aside for the government of course.

And then there are the laws to protect whistleblowers, but there are also official rules and statutes to govern how a whistleblower comes forward too.

Fake Science stopped on JANUARY 20th 2017!

How's ja like to have Spicer's job? Have to go out there and tell everybody some kind of delusional babble that your terminally narcissistic boss utters in defense of some minuscule affront to his ego.

a reply to: CHONGO

Hey, it's working. For the most part, the press is all in a lather about that and not really paying attention to all the other stuff they could be whipping themselves into a frenzy over.

a reply to: Snarl

Your know, interestingly enough, he did say there was no need for new laws (from his speech at DHS today), that we can use existing law to see enforce his policies. I guess your post explains why he made that comment. Interesting and thanks.

a reply to: ketsuko

In the government, public statements are run through the Public Affairs Office or PAO. The PAOs (and I am intimately familiar with the ways-and-means of several) are run like the Ministry of Propaganda. It's going to take a little while to move certain entrenched government staff out of those paragraph and line numbers ... and move in people that understand Trump's goals and objectives.

It might take quite a long time even.

originally posted by: soficrow
As far as "standard business practice" goes - the Big Boyz compete for Patents and Intellectual Property Rights, and demand full confidentiality. But WE pay for this research and have a right to know what it is, and what the results are.

And if that research was funded only because it would produce results that support a political narrative without the balance of opposition science, did we get our money's worth?

Politics have no place in sound science.

a reply to: UKTruth

So corrupt that a 10 year old can prove it with a simple science project...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: soficrow

If you want to post about official business in most workplaces, your statements have to go by HR. And generally HR manages press releases and information dumps along with whatever PR and marketing you may have. This is FOIA requests aside for the government of course.
.

HR and FOIA don't know # about science. Scientists need to talk about their work with their peers, and the public has a right to access research funded by tax money.

We already know political science gag orders set research back by decades - like Bush's gag orders on prion research, which impacted HIV/AIDS treatments, and totally buggered memory research and neuroscience.

originally posted by: EightAhoy

originally posted by: soficrow
As far as "standard business practice" goes - the Big Boyz compete for Patents and Intellectual Property Rights, and demand full confidentiality. But WE pay for this research and have a right to know what it is, and what the results are.

And if that research was funded only because it would produce results that support a political narrative without the balance of opposition science, did we get our money's worth?

Science is science. There is NO SUCH THING as "oppositional science."

Politics have no place in sound science.

EXACTLY!

originally posted by: soficrow

originally posted by: EightAhoy

originally posted by: soficrow
As far as "standard business practice" goes - the Big Boyz compete for Patents and Intellectual Property Rights, and demand full confidentiality. But WE pay for this research and have a right to know what it is, and what the results are.

And if that research was funded only because it would produce results that support a political narrative without the balance of opposition science, did we get our money's worth?

Science is science. There is NO SUCH THING as "oppositional science."

Politics have no place in sound science.

EXACTLY!

Yet scientists are federally funded and the federal government receives insane "contributions" to promote bad science.

It is probably just as important (if not more) to separate science from government just like the church. After all, science and religion try to explain the same thing....more or less.

I miss ATS live podcasting radio show.

I'm not an advocate of AGW, which despite all the changes to the title, now mostly called Climate Change, is still ultimately a bullseye hit to people warmers as if...that means us of course. the acronym, TDRKAFWIWTP is more to the point, once you work out the acronym.
What I find funny peculiar, is that departments are told to shut up twittering, But El Presidente continues to twitter like feck. That being the case then, and that this bit of blarney, if it comes down from Trump, then you know what you have got....a Dictator. There is no need to shut science people up in a transit of power for instance.

One caveat, let's not start attacking NASA as a bogeyman for instance, (I see that in a number of posts in the blog link) even though I don't think NASA's stance in the past was always the right one re climate cha....whatever, I do think though that they are becoming more hard core on getting more coherent on stuff that was just thrown out there in the past by others, waving maps and stats.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Hopefully this means he is going to kill all the global warming fascism and start opening up the debate.

How is it a debate? I mean, we don't debate gravity, so why is global warming a debate? Serious question.

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: UKTruth
Hopefully this means he is going to kill all the global warming fascism and start opening up the debate.

How is it a debate? I mean, we don't debate gravity, so why is global warming a debate? Serious question.

Because its backed by bad science.