Diamondeye wrote:
TheRiov wrote:
This might be the stupidest Most intellectually dishonest thing you've ever posted. I call Bullshit. This is about hiding a truth that Conservatives are trying to pretend doesnt exist. The public is not served by hiding scientific, peer reviewed data and you goddamn know it. You just dont like that the facts contradict your agenda. Purging data from public sources means that other scholarly articles can't use that data as a starting point. It hampers the production of new science. And it prevents other policy makers from utilizing the data.
The EPA isn't about science.And the National Review, while by its own admission is conservative, is populated by credible writers and is an entirely reliable source, so don't even start with that horseshit. With the exception of the Hill, the sources you cited are leftist outlets and entirely non-credible on such a sacred cow as climate change.
Well lets see: The Hill, the NYT and PBS all come out slightly left of center but hardly the 'leftist outlet' you claim.
Futurism is showing up not having a left/right spin, just pro-science and is deemed credible.
The National Review on the other hand is far-right bias. I suppose if you could find an article refuting the fact that the data was purged (lets be clear, I dont think such an article exists.
(source:
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com,
https://www.allsides.com/, )
But I'm not even using these sources for their spin, just the fact that the data is being removed. I guess you could try to lie to yourself and claim its because the science is bad.
In fact, its becoming clear that the Right actively wants the United States population to become less informed.
One party attempts to defund schools every chance they get.
One party supports banning some topics from the classroom.
One party is making it harder for people to go to college.
Polls show that after watching the primary conservative outlet, people are LESS informed about the world.
Hell, polls are starting to show that increasingly, republicans think that higher education is BAD for America. (I can understand why, the more highly educated a person is, the less likely they are to vote republican (
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/ ... filiation/)
Let me be clear, I'm not saying voting Republican makes you stupid or that only stupid people vote Republican. What I am saying is that the leadership of the GOP knows where their base is, and planning for the future, wants to remain in power. They therefor would prefer it if the people who vote, "the masses" were less educated, more religious, because that demographic votes their way.
I mean realistically, BOTH sides would prefer an electorate that was easily manipulated by their particular narrative if it means they can remain in power.
Quote:
You are just spewing the usual nonsense lines about people "not liking data that doesn't support their conclusions." No. What I don't like is activists masquerading as government employees and scientists feeding data to the public and trying to stymie any attempt to actually evaluate it.
You know, I think you've repeated this lie often enough you actually believe it yourself. But the fact of the matter is that people go through grad school, spend decades on their education for what are typically only middle-class jobs not because they're pushing an agenda, but because they're passionate about the science. You cannot survive in science if you're unwilling to question and be questioned. You seem to think that graduate schools are churning out long haired hippies to push a political agenda. Rather the reverse is true: People who study the science, who understand the science, come to conclusions. Did they come in with a bias? Surely. That doesn't mean its easy to hang on to that bias in the face of mountains of data. Real science (the thing you STILL fail to understand) demands that when the data shows something other than your beliefs, you must discard those beliefs.
Quote:
Quote:
But Pruitt hasn’t done anything to discourage peer review. In fact, he’s done the opposite: He has called for the use of more independent experts to review the EPA’s research and has just announced that the agency would rely only on studies for which data are available to be shared.
Quote:
Pruitt’s critics have also excoriated him for insisting that the EPA’s advisory boards consist of independent scientists, ending the practice of including researchers who receive grants from the agency — exactly the sort of conflict of interest that progressives object to when researchers receive money from private industry.
Receiving a grant does NOT
necessarily make you biased. Go'vt grants contain no stipulations about what the research must show; the research methodology itself must bear up to scrutiny. The problem is that these "independent" researchers that Pruitt claims to be hiring are nearly always shills for gas companies, etc--- people who ARE biased. The Government still gets money from taxes regardless of what the data shows. The overall impact of any ten studies has little to do with the funding the agency gets and more to do with party in power. The people doing the research have no real stake in a conclusion one way or another. Even negative results are results. A hypothesis proven false is good science.
On the other hand oil and gas companies profit margins, their ability to drill, burn, pollute are 1000% more biasing than the government funding, butseem incapable of understanding this basic human motivator; greed. There are billions of dollars out there for corporate funded scientists and the profitability of commercial research vastly exceeds academic and government research. Follow the goddamn money
Quote:
He has also proposed an analysis of climate change using a “red-team/blue-team” exercise, an innovative technique that has been used to draw up plans at the Defense Department and the CIA and by private industry for industrial operations and projects such as designing spacecraft. A group of outside experts, the red team, is brought in to critique the work of the in-house blue team, which then responds, and the teams keep going back and forth, under the supervision of a moderator. It’s an enhanced form of peer review, forcing researchers and bureaucrats to defend or reconsider their ideas, and ideally leading to sounder conclusions and better plans. A version of this exercise has already been used to bolster the case for man-made global warming, as noted by Joseph Majkut of the Niskanen Institute.
This equal time approach is the same idiocy that leads to 'intelligent design' nonsense and presuming there is some merit to flat earth theories. You research where the data takes you, not down every path you wish it would go and then try to find confirmation of it.
Quote:
Just because the EPA put data on its website does not mean that data was either credible or responsible or obtained by anything like legitimate scientific investigation. Just because data is on the EPA website does not make that data either credible or responsible to release. Like the DOJ civil rights division, it attracts a certain kind of activist (both with its mission and the attractive government salary; it's quite the racket) and it is an entirely untrustworthy agency, up there with the IRS in terms of its history of dishonesty.
You're right. Of course anyone can put data up there. But the stuff being purged was solid research; they just didnt like the results.
Quote:
But relly, the problem here is you and your lectures about science. You don't know **** from shinola about science. It's a word you throw at people in your hubristic assumption that your politics make you both better informed and more morally virtuous than others. To be fair, you are far from the only one; being too lazy to learn anything beyond what YouTube and Wikipedia teach and then sanctimoniously preaching about "Science" has been a common internet passtime for at least a decade now.
Yeah I guess undergrad studies in astrophysics/physics and mathematics, research theses I helped gather data for, the summer internships, the two years I spent in a research lab don't mean anything. I was only raised by researchers, married a researcher, etc. But hey, I don't know anything about science!
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
