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.

 

U.S. government scientists go 'rogue' in defiance of Trump

page: 4
50
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 05:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: soficrow
In the daily press briefing yesterday, Spicer said that this order did NOT come from Trump or the White House.

He said he understands that the order came from within their own departments, and that they were requesting people to follow existing policies, because people were violating them.


unfortunately under Obama obeying the laws and abiding by policies wasn`t necessary. after working in an environment that was extremely lax on procedures, policies and laws, some of those employees might be having a difficult time adapting to a proper work environment.
edit on 26-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Are a few rogue individuals representative of the entire community from whence they came?

Who is the highest ranking Scientist in the US government?, and what does this person have to say about all of this?



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: verschickter


The press says government ordered it, the government says the agencies themselves put this in place. So what do we do now?



March with the scientists of course. They know exactly what they're up against. AND what to do.


Scientists planning massive march in DC




Heres a thought. those scientist(who are on the government dole) can be stripped of their credentials and black balled from ever working for anything doing with science for the government again if this is true. Personally i welcome the reduction of scientist who are just in it for the money.



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Fire the lot of em .
Maybe hollywierd will hire them as writers since theyre good at making things up .



posted on Jan, 26 2017 @ 10:21 PM
link   
Nice.


Government science goes rogue on Twitter

...The AltUSNatParkService Twitter account (@AltNatParkSer) was launched on Tuesday, announcing that it has been “activated in time of war and censorship to ensure fact-based education.” As of Thursday morning, they have 980,000 followers — more than double the number of followers on the main National Park Service account (381,000).

The account introduced itself with defiant messages: “Mr Trump, you may have taken us down officially. But with scientific evidence & the Internet our message will get out,” and “Respect goes out to our brothers and sisters at the @BadlandsNPS. When they silence you, we will speak for you.”




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

As long as they are not violating any terms of their Non Disclosure Agreements, and aren't using official accounts, why not?
If they want to set up an alarmist style twitter feed, have at it. It's not the first and it won't be the last.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 02:59 AM
link   
I can't wait to see the SIGNS that the protesting scientists will be carrying! Their verbiage will be concise, with long wrap-around words.

Maybe they can fish some of the Women's protest signs out of the landfill and use them?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

They should wear those little beanie hats with the propellers on them.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:23 AM
link   
IQ points fall daily in our country.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: carewemust

They should wear those little beanie hats with the propellers on them.



Since these are government scientists, that would be appropriate. They could say that the propellers are to help reverse human-made global warming.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 03:41 AM
link   
In Canada, if you are working with government money to do scientific research, you cannot publicize the results without consent from the federal government.

Of course our government would withhold anything that contests the climate change narrative.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Academia have ZERO CREDIBILITY at this point..

I could list any number of fields where the consensus of science is fundamentally wrong. From the very foundation of our views on matter, energy and consciousness to ufology, race, gender studies and ancient history. As well as the academic consensus on geopolitics, politics and international power relations. The accepted view on all of these subjects is still exoteric and still lacking in depth. Like the more or less accepted view that secret societies haven't been the prime movers and shakers in shaping Western civilisation. This absurd idea that there's isn't a deeper level to politics and geopolitics beyond what our governments and media portray, that our top politicians are all more or less acting independently even when they're tied to the hip to any number of shady groups.

Hell, these people can proclaim their agenda quite openly and still people will look at the blatant evidence and go.. yeah, the emperor certainly looks naked and he did just call himself naked but he's not really naked though, surely he must have been joking.. Someone is taking liberties when interpreting his statements.

So forgive me for being skeptical of all of this global warming - I mean climate change hype when I already know that scientists are just as liable to be collectively brainwashed as the general populace is. I simply can't trust their judgment, they're as blind as bats and as subject to herd behaviour as the rest of humanity is. So, even if there were merit to the idea of climate change that these people are pushing I still wouldn't trust that agenda as they would surely be maneuvering to use this scare to further their diabolical plans. Carbon credits and selling air comes to mind.

And, well, you know. These people were caught manipulating data a few years back. So no, I don't trust the intentions of our leaders and I don't trust the integrity of these scientists either.

Though I will say that while I am skeptical I have not personally researched this subject more than superficially so I'm still open to the possibility of there being something to it. Although I don't really care about this subject so I'll continue sitting on the fence on this one. Either way the intentions of our leaders are not to be trusted. And at this point I don't really trust the judgment of progressives either, they probably take the truth of climate change for granted as a part of the 'progressive package'. I doubt these liberal college douchebag kids have any type of understanding of the science involved or even the maturity or intellectual development required to make sense of a subject this complex(not saying I do either for that matter). Generally speaking of course, I mean these people believe in critical theory, progressive stack and about a billion different genders.

I seem to recall reading a comment from an actual scientist earlier in a thread here saying that this was pretty much standard procedure the world over already. So I don't know. I think this is a non issue.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadMoonJester



I could list any number of fields where the consensus of science is fundamentally wrong. From the very foundation of our views on matter, energy and consciousness to ufology, race, gender studies and ancient history. As well as the academic consensus on geopolitics, politics and international power relations. The accepted view on all of these subjects is still exoteric and still lacking in depth.



I agree. We need more data. Too much has been suppressed for too long - from the Catholic church gagging Galileo and Copernicus, to Darwin and his cronies lying about the mating habits of female arctic birds to "protect" Victorian "sensibilities," to Big Pharma using "Confidentiality Agreements" to hide critical data on prion creation and spread.

So no, I do not welcome a return to the "Dark Ages."



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: soficrow

Well I believe it and salute them for it.
Trying to silence science you don't agree with is worrying.


This is hilarious. Silence science? No it's silencing the globalist propaganda machine embedded in academia. It's time to defund the left. What will the climate scientists start doing when they get unfiltered unbiased data from government sensors? Will George Soros or the Rothschild carbon tax advocates still fund their research?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 08:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: MALBOSIA
In Canada, if you are working with government money to do scientific research, you cannot publicize the results without consent from the federal government.

Of course our government would withhold anything that contests the climate change narrative.


The Harper regime started muzzling scientists in 2006, about when Bush started gagging US scientists. The Trudeau administration apparently issued a communications policy "with the intention to end 'muzzling' ..." but it may be applied 'unevenly.'

Makes me wonder what they're all trying to hide.


FAQ: The issues around muzzling government scientists

Federal scientists have been restricted from publicly talking about their research, they claim

For years, the Conservative government has been accused of "muzzling" federal scientists by controlling who they're allowed to talk to and what they can say about their own research.

...In 2006, the Harper government introduced strict procedures around how its scientists are allowed to speak about their research to the media.



Canadian scientists offer support to muzzled US counterparts

For nine years under Canada’s previous government, science suffered harsh restrictions. Now US scientists may be facing a similar fate



Muzzled scientists? Trudeau carries on just like Harper

If Stephen Harper muzzled federal government scientists, then Justin Trudeau has failed to lift the muzzle, a federal public sector union says...

..."a communications policy was issued by (the Trudeau government) with the intention to end 'muzzling' but its implementation remains uneven across science-based departments," PIPSC says in a submission to Finance Minister Bill Morneau.

...During the Harper years, some scientists complained they were forbidden from discussing their research, could not attend academic conferences, and that some had to wait weeks -- months, even -- for approval to speak publicly about their work.

[NOTE: This coverage looks like a fight against budget cuts.]




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner
I produce almost 90% of the electrical power I consume from my water + photovoltaik power plant. If you consume electrical power from the public network, you´re much having a much greater impact on the environment, worser than I ever could.




posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: soficrow

Like a rambling old man, you make no sense at all.

What does it matter who wrote that quote? And on top of that, Mr. Hawking is not infallable so just pointing out it´s his quote does nothing, just shows your poor tactic on this one. It´s not that I said anything about the validity off this quote, but changed a word to change the meaning, better fitting here.

If you don´t get that, maybe try try again.



posted on Jan, 29 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

Like many here, you treat direct quotes -be it a headline or quoted statement- as if the quotes are the posters' own words. In this case, you credited me with a statement made by renowned physicist Stephen Hawking (thanks btw), removed his name, and edited it for "accuracy-according-to-verschickter" - without even mentioning him.




WARNING: verschickter GASLIGHTING




edit on 29/1/17 by soficrow because: format



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: soficrow
My god.



Like many here, you treat direct quotes -be it a headline or quoted statement- as if the quotes are the posters' own words.

Show me where I wrote that it was your own words. I mean, show me the actual text that says that. Not what you think I wrote, but what I actually wrote.
You can´t.



In this case, you credited me with a statement made by renowned physicist Stephen Hawking (thanks btw),...

Thank you for what? How do you define "credited"?



... removed his name, and edited it for "accuracy-according-to-verschickter" - without even mentioning him.

I selected the text I needed, and quoted it.
I made clear what the origina text is, I made clear what my version is. That was the whole point of the post. Of course it´s always better to credit someone (like I did in my signature, you see..). But in this case, my post is linked to yours and I did not remove his name, I never selected it. It was certanly NOT by intention. Your making a fuss out of nothing to sidetrack is my feeling. It does not matter who wrote it. I never commented on that. Your a liar if you insist that I did that. A damn liar.




WARNING: verschickter GASLIGHTING


Alarmist much? It´s overwhelming how much you interpret into 7 -seven- words. Only shows your mindset.
edit on 1-2-2017 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: verschickter




Trump administration clampdowns on research agencies worry scientists

Chaos, confusion reign over how far-reaching, long-lasting directives are

Some restrictions are normal in a transition, …Putting a hold on making policy statements is one of those.

Withholding scientific results is not, and that fear looms, says Rosenberg, who now directs the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Mass. Banning the release and discussion of research and data would directly violate the various scientific integrity policies that guide federal agencies. Among other things, these policies state that federal scientists may speak to the media and public about their work. The EPA’s policy also says: “To operate an effective science and regulatory agency like the EPA, it is also essential that political or other officials not suppress or alter scientific findings.”

Science isn’t intended to reflect a new administration. Science is intended to reflect data and evidence,” Rosenberg says.

.....







edit on 1/2/17 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join