It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump administration: EPA studies, data must undergo political review before release

page: 1
32
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:
+15 more 
posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 07:40 PM
link   

The Trump administration is scrutinizing studies and data published by scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency, while new work is under a "temporary hold" before it can be released.

The communications director for President Donald Trump's transition team at EPA, Doug Ericksen, said Wednesday the review extends to all existing content on the federal agency's website, including details of scientific evidence showing that the Earth's climate is warming and man-made carbon emissions are to blame.

Ericksen clarified his earlier statements he made to The Associated Press, which reported that the Trump administration was mandating that any studies or data from EPA scientists undergo review by political appointees before they can be released to the public. He said he was speaking about existing scientific information on the EPA website that is under review by members of the Trump administration's transition team.

SOURCE


I'll be looking forward to seeing how Trump supporters spin this. Everyone's heard of the need for peer review when it comes to scientific data. I've never heard of anything like the above in the United States.

It seems like the kind of thing that belongs in North Korea. It's not the first time such a thing has happened already.

Trump's 'day of patriotic devotion' has echoes of North Korea

I was concerned about Trump's tendency to micromanage. Even if he's making bad decisions, it should be entertaining to watch.

As usual, a story that portrays Trump even slightly negatively isn't posted at ATS quickly.




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I'll wait to see what happens and any explanations. For now I neither support nor oppose this decision though I can clearly see arguments against it.

Sincerely a Devout Supporter of God-Emperor Trump.

Quick question though. Does this not contradict what you've stated?



He said new work by the agency's scientists is subject to the same "temporary hold" as other kinds of public releases, which he said would likely be lifted by Friday. He said there was no mandate to subject studies or data to political review.


From your source.
edit on 25-1-2017 by ksiezyc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

It HAS happened before: peer review replaced by political intervention (links below). And it looks like all the science departments were hit with gag orders, not just the EPA.



ATS 2005: U.S. Still Silencing Scientists

… "The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," says Lexi Shultz of the Union of Concerned Scientists. According to critics, the Bush administration routinely alters science to suit political objectives.



ATS 2006: Saving Public Access to Scientific Information

The Bush administration's 2007 budget cut the EPA Library Network's budget by 80 percent, and the EPA started shutting down libraries before Congress even approved the budget. Critics say this is another example of the Bush administration restricting public access to scientific information…




ATS 2006: Rewriting The Science: How the Bush Administration is Lying to You!




F&S&
btw



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc

It seems to be allowing people outside the EPA to determine what information to release and allow them to apply political spin as they see fit.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I may be mistaken but doesn' one Trumo advisor stabd to gain £512m payout from Golrdan Sachhs and couple hunded milion froma few oil companies, conflict ov interest much? ------------------- will find source.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: bastion

Yes, please. Find that source!



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Pyle

Perhaps read my entire reply and quote.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:13 PM
link   
"" Trump administration: EPA studies, data must undergo political review before release ""



He said there was no mandate to subject studies or data to political review.





posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:23 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

From the Associated Press and Bloomberg:


AP/Bloomberg: Trump Admin Orders EPA Contract Freeze And Media Blackout

…”This decision could have damaging implications… from delaying testing for lead in schools to restricting efforts to keep drinking water clean to holding up much-needed funding to revitalize toxic brownfield sites,” Schumer said.

The executive director for the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Jeff Ruch, said the orders go beyond what has occurred in prior presidential transitions.

We're watching the dark cloud of Mordor extend over federal service,” Ruch said Tuesday, referring to the evil kingdom in the epic fantasy "The Lord of the Rings."

…In a test of what the new administration will tolerate, the official Twitter account of the Badlands National Park published a series of posts Tuesday accurately quoting climate science data that included the current record-setting high concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The tweets were soon deleted.




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Peer review by science is one thing, peer review by politic appointees sounds like BS. I think they mean lobbyist approval.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Politicians have to review the science before it can be released to the public?

Is that what it says?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: ksiezyc

Doesn't that say that ongoing and future studies are not subject to political review, but I think all of those have been put on hold right?

Past findings of studies do seem to be under political review though.
edit on 25-1-2017 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Good point. But hopefully past data and studies are included in the end of the freeze(Friday).



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I really wish I could get the full picture of what's going on.

ksiezyc seemed to pierce this hysteria pretty quickly.

If deleting a tweet from the badlands national park is the dark cloud of mordor I am really not going to even pay attention to this. Drama queens



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: Grimpachi

Good point. But hopefully past data and studies are included in the end of the freeze(Friday).


I bet we get some indications of what's fake.




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Relax. It's a joke.




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   
Peer Review = I lie and you swear to it.






posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Peer review by science is one thing, peer review by politic appointees sounds like BS. I think they mean lobbyist approval.


"Peer review by science" for years now actually means "peer review FROM government-approved and funded scientists TO government-approved and funded scientists."

It doesn't actually mean anything anymore. There is your BS. Like the funny "97% of scientists agree with AGW" quote when it turned out that possibly 33% did. Maybe, if you fudge the numbers right.

Link to original Abstract

So why not let people that are not getting paid to cherry-pick results to make a conclusion that they need to get continued funding for look over the data?

After all, it's the government looking at something the government is doing.

You statists should love this kind of interaction. Your owners are taking care of you!!!




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
Politicians have to review the science before it can be released to the public?

Is that what it says?


No not "politicians"

"Political Scientists"




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I'm all for this... as long it's a panel of people and they all hold degrees in science relevant to the matter.

Otherwise this is a charade and it won't end well.

I wonder how much the jobs in the Ministry of Truth will pay? What kind of experience do you need for censoring free speech? Does anyone actually have experience in that or will it be just a whole department of newbs?



new topics

top topics



 
32
<<   2 >>

log in

join