Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
kiwichick wrote:@ t really?....which departments did Obama shut down??
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
Tanada wrote:kiwichick wrote:@ t really?....which departments did Obama shut down??
The departments are not "shut down" they were told to stop spending money on anything new and stop speaking on social media until new leadership is in place and evaluates how the money should be spent and what should be said to the public about it. This is standard operating procedure upon change of government especially when there is a stark contrast between the outlook and goals of the leaders involved.
Doug Ericksen, the head of communications for the Trump administration's EPA transition team, said:
Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency who want to publish or present their scientific findings will need to have their work reviewed on a "case by case basis" before it can be disseminated, according to a spokesman for the agency's transition team.
Any review would directly contradict the agency's current scientific integrity policy, which was published in 2012.
It prohibits "all EPA employees, including scientists, managers and other Agency leadership from suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions."
Ericksen said that under Trump, the EPA will focus on its "core mission, which is to protect the environment and protect human health."
When asked if climate change fit into that, he repeated that they'll focus on the core mission.
Doug Ericksen, the head of communications for the Trump administration's EPA transition team, said:
Scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency who want to publish or present their scientific findings will need to have their work reviewed on a "case by case basis" before it can be disseminated, according to a spokesman for the agency's transition team.
Any review would directly contradict the agency's current scientific integrity policy, which was published in 2012.
It prohibits "all EPA employees, including scientists, managers and other Agency leadership from suppressing, altering, or otherwise impeding the timely release of scientific findings or conclusions."
rockdoc123 wrote:
I don't see ...
... according to Alden Meyer, a veteran climate campaigner with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"President Trump and his team are pursuing what I call a 'control-alt-delete' strategy: control the scientists in the federal agencies, alter science-based policies to fit their narrow ideological agenda, and delete scientific information from government websites," told BBC News.
"This is an across-the-board strategy that we are seeing at multiple federal agencies on a range of issues, though climate denialism is clearly the point of the spear."
rockdoc123 wrote:Every company I ever worked for had rules around disclosure ... The EPA is not any different from any other business.
An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spokesman said the Trump administration is not currently planning to take down website content regarding climate change.
Doug Ericksen, spokesman for the so-called beachhead team working to transition the agency to the Trump administration, said officials are reviewing all of the “editorial” parts of the EPA’s website for possible changes...
The Department of Agriculture has reportedly lifted an order that called for scientists and employees of its research arm not to release any of its work to the public.
After a report that the agency had told staff to stop releasing any "news releases, photos, fact sheets, news feeds, and social media content,” BuzzFeed reported that another memo was sent Tuesday night from a top official for the department’s Agricultural Research Service that the original order should not have been issued and “is hereby rescinded.” ...
According to the U.S. Congress, it's not a company (or a business).
By the way. I worked in the EPA, so don't feed your bullshit
rockdoc123 wrote:...suggesting that individual scientists working for EPA or USDA or NOAA for that matter should have the right to publish anything they please, wherever they please without any oversight? That they should be able to speak to press whenever they please pretending to have the full authority of the government behind them?
WASHINGTON (AP) — The communications director for President Donald Trump's transition team at EPA, Doug Ericksen, said Wednesday the EPA 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.
Asked specifically about scientific data being collected by agency scientists, such as routine monitoring of air and water pollution, Ericksen responded, "Everything is subject to review."
William K. Reilly, who was EPA administrator under Republican President George H.W. Bush, said what seems to be happening with science at the agency is "going down a very dark road."
The EPA's 14-page scientific integrity document, enacted during the Obama administration, describes how scientific studies were to be conducted and reviewed in the agency. It said scientific studies should eventually be communicated to the public, the media and Congress "uncompromised by political or other interference."
The scientific integrity document expressly "prohibits managers and other Agency leadership from intimidating or coercing scientists to alter scientific data, findings or professional opinions or inappropriately influencing scientific advisory boards." It provides ways for employees who know the science to disagree with scientific reports and policies and offers them some whistleblower protection.
George Gray, the assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Research and Development during the Republican administration of President George W. Bush, said scientific studies were reviewed usually at lower levels and even when they were reviewed at higher levels, it was to give officials notice about the studies — not for editing of content.
"There's no way to win if you try to change things," Gray said. ... "The level of mismanagement being exercised during this transition is startling and the impact on the public is alarming."
Plantagenet wrote:This is worrisome but lets not lose track of reality. The EPA mission doesn't include collecting climate data --- thats what NOAA/NASA and the weather service does. THE EPA may have some climate data, but it would be collected incidentally to their work, which is environmental monitoring and hazard abatement. What we need to watch out for on the EPA side is if the EPA was restricted from monitoring methane leaks at oil fields and things like that.
ritter wrote:Plantagenet wrote:What we need to watch out for on the EPA side is if the EPA was restricted from monitoring methane leaks at oil fields and things like that.
Or regulating CO2 from power plants?
The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is home to the world’s largest repository of climate data.
It houses data from the United States and from other countries, many of which rely on NOAA’s archives to understand everything from the shifting global climate, to the health of fisheries, to ocean chemistry, to the paleoclimatic record—including million-year-old tree rings. NOAA’s information also figures into the daily lives of Americans perhaps more than any other agency; if you’ve checked the weather forecast lately, you can thank NOAA. And perhaps most importantly, NOAA’s records serve as the backbone of scientific evidence of human-induced global warming.
Now, all that is in the hands of Kenneth Haapala, selected by US president Donald Trump to help appoint top administrators at NOAA. Haapala serves on the transition team for the US Department of Commerce, which oversees the agency. He is also an unabashed climate-change denier.
Haapala is a policy expert at the Heartland Institute, a conservative group that has equated belief in climate change with terrorism and mass murder. The group devotes significant resources to promoting the false claim that there not a scientific consensus on climate change, and that, according to its website, “Most scientists do not believe human greenhouse gas emissions are a proven threat to the environment or to human well-being,” which is also false.
Heartland has also worked to influence public school curriculums away from teaching about climate change as a man-made reality. The group has been financed in part by donations from foundations tied to Koch Industries, a major oil refiner.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D) of Rhode Island and Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva (D) wrote a letter to Trump last week, opposing Haapala’s appointment and citing his work downplaying the threat of sea level rise, the Huffington Post reported.
“We urge you to remove Mr. Haapala and any others who share his discredited views on climate science from the DOC landing team. He certainly does not understand or appreciate NOAA’s mission and therefore is unfit to serve in any capacity that oversees operations or personnel decisions at the agency,” the congressmen wrote.
Haapala will help choose NOAA’s leadership once the Senate votes on billionaire investor Wilbur Ross, Trump’s choice for secretary of commerce.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s website has begun to transform under the Trump administration.
Climate change is being disassociated from carbon pollution. In the process of removing a mention of Obama’s Climate Action Plan, the partnerships page also no longer mentions carbon pollution as a cause of climate change. Removing the commitment to the United Nations process also came with removing a statement linking greenhouse gas emissions to climate change. Adaptation has been emphasized, indicating an attempt to separate the cause of climate change from the response.
There have been extensive revisions made to the EPA's climate collaboration page, including removing language about carbon pollution.
Putting the web page changes together with Trump's statements dismissing climate change gives a clearer picture of his vision of "America First." It likely signals that the U.S. will be stepping back from addressing global climate change. And by removing the information, it could give Trump and Scott Pruitt, his nominee to head the EPA, more leeway to decimate funding for programs they see as incompatible with “America First.”
“If the public is unaware of partnerships depending on the EPA, it may be easier to shrink the EPA without raising as much concern,” said Gretchen Gehrke, a data quality manager at Public Lab and a member of the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI).
One common theme running through the alterations is removing references to Obama-era projects such as the Climate Action Plan and other federal roadmaps to address climate change. The international partnership page also lost a paragraph affirming the U.S. commitment to the United Nations climate negotiations.“The United Nations stuff being removed is maybe not surprising but definitely not positive.”
Language on the EPA's international climate partnership page has removed introductory text about the U.S. commitment to the United Nations climate talk process and support of the OECD.
The changes follows a pattern seen on the State Department’s website. After the inauguration, a handful of pages on the U.S. commitment to international climate talks and funds were removed.
Recently leaked documents published by BuzzFeed News show newly minted Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is even less committed to the Paris Agreement than his on-camera testimony would bely, further underscoring the possibility of the U.S. stepping back from a burgeoning leadership role on climate.
... “Climate change does exist,” said President Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of state at the Jan. 11 hearing. He said “the consequences of it could be serious enough that action should be taken.”
But with the cameras turned off, Tillerson took a different tone.
In responses to written questions from at least two senators, Tillerson questioned the consensus among climate scientists about humanity’s role in warming the planet — including some scientists who work for ExxonMobil, the company Tillerson ran for a decade. He also doubled back spoken testimony that said the United States should remain in the Paris climate accord.“I agree with the consensus view that combustion of fossil fuels is a leading cause for increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” he wrote to Cardin. “I understand these gases to be a factor in rising temperature, but I do not believe the scientific consensus supports their characterization as the ‘key’ factor.”
...Tillerson wrote in response to a question from Merkley about maintaining “global leadership” in the Paris Agreement.“The United States should decide to join an international agreement based on its own national interests and not the interests or opinions of other nations,”
Then he gave an out: The US shouldn’t stay in the agreement if it hurts business.
Tillerson’s responses to these two senators, Ben Cardin of Maryland and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, are not yet public but were obtained by BuzzFeed News. The offices of both senators confirmed that the answers to their questionnaires are real.
Return to Environment, Weather & Climate
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests