If climate change isn't real, why do you have to censor scientists?

If climate change isn't real, why do you have to censor scientists?

Other urls found in this thread:

people-press.org/2016/12/08/3-political-values-government-regulation-environment-immigration-race-views-of-islam/#majority-of-americans-say-environmental-regulations-are-worth-the-cost
thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/overnights/316200-overnight-energy-trump-team-says-epa-climate-work-is
govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hconres107/text
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Trump will never win this battle. The majority of Americans, regardless of who they voted for, recognize climate change as a serious threat. He'll be forced to accept climate change in the very near future. He's already showed signs of it, back in november he said he was open to the idea and backed off of his chinese hoax statement. Rick Perry has also begun to accept climate change as well. The science is settled, the only debate exists within small minded individuals who make no attempt to understand science, and go out of their way to obscure it. They have no idea they are the perfect shills for the most massive industry in the world.

That's fake news.

>recognize climate change as a serious threat.
What timeline do you live in? Nobody gives a damn about AlGores inconvenient bullshit. I burn my trash and so do all my neighbors...so whatever progress you make by driving your faggot prius we're gonna shit on.

>perfect shills for energy industry
>literally 90% of the first world soaks up coporate propaganda, leading them to the notion that "muh scary carbon emissions" are ending humanity.

yup, sure seems like thepropaganda" is effective, making 5-10% believe climate change isn't man made!

you're argument is actually retarded

I'm glad you burn your trash. It poses little harm to the environment, and would not be in any way shape or form a factor in our current crisis.

Al Gore is not a scientist. Those of us who actually study the atmosphere, such as myself, have very little respect for Al Gore, as his wild claims have been almost as detrimental to our cause of the fossil fuel industry has.

Your argument does not make much sense. Please clarify.

yeah you got it man

humanity's fucked 'cause of a bunch of retards in the woods burnin' their walmart bags

might as well pack it up, world's fucked

That was an unexpected and well tought out answer to my bait, dammit.

What can I burn or release into the atmosphere that would piss of a tree hugger like yourself? Asking for a friend.

It turns out scientist are not excluded from the groups of people that are willing to be paid for saying certain things. Who would have guessed that a "profession" at the mercy of federal grants would be easily influenced by politics?

F A K E N E W S
A
K
E
N
E
W
S

Do you understand how the grant process works? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Agreed, the tide is turning quickly. The only question is about how Trump will react to it. Will he take a measured approach, gauge public opinion, and then make a decision based around that? Or will he be impulsive, ignore the world around him and any political consequences, and make a decision quickly?

This is why I think Trump is so dangerous. He's too reactive. I'm fine with someone shaking up the system a little bit, but so far his actions are threatening the balance of world powers and the United States' voice around the globe. Whatever happen, the people who make up Interior, Energy, and even Ag believe in and operate under the fact that humans are changing the earth's climate. A new administration isn't going to change that.

>He's already showed signs of it, back in november he said he was open to the idea
It was at this moment you realized that Trump does actually understand the importance of furthered understanding of climate mechanics, but is extremely unsatisfied with the bloat and unprofessionalism that is becoming synonymous with a "climate scientist".

He only wants to make our climate scientist great again! What is so wrong with that? If the scientist can defend his research against the criticisms of the people, something which he should be perfectly capable of, then he has nothing to worry about.

Look up any government sunshine project and donate to political candidates that take the largest campaign contributions from coal companies.

>He'll be forced to accept

lol

Fake News

It's to stop secrets getting out

>telling he EPA which you control they can't tweet anymore

>censoring scientists

No he is not letting employees tweet shit he doesn't like, this didn't censor a scoentist it censors employees and beurocrats

yeah i don't believe in any of it. not even a little bit. I just like when huggers get all chuffed at my attitude towards the earth. Even if it were true I still wouldn't care a lick.

Huge grants paid to (((scientists))) and their organizations just make it easier to not care.

PS: FLAT EARTH!!!!!!

I don't; but if I had to guess I'd say:
Come up with theorem -> beg for money to proof it

(If this is how it goes; if the government likes certain theories; they're absolutely able to proof anything they like.)

If the holocaust was real, why do you have to censor deniers?

What do you think those grants are for? I keep seeing this argument put out there, but it doesn't make sense.

Scientists aren't going to apply for or take grants if they won't be able to perform research. That would be like giving an engineer $100,000 to build a bridge, but he's not allowed to build bridges, but he can only use the money to build bridges.

Let's actually relate it to scientists. I want to study bears, and I apply for a federal grant to do so. I'm given the grant, but the Feds tell me that if I take it, I can't study bears. Why the fuck would I take, or even apply for, that grant?

Incoming administrations do this until they can be sure that agencies are in line with their new policies.

Fake News.

How is this not violating free speech?

Because climate change is real

its not real, just shut the fuck up fag

>a law enforcement agency can't post on twitter anymore
>censorship

Obama-appointed civil servants are not scientists and twitter is not a peer-reviewed journal.

They are at the mercy of some bureaucrat's signature. I have met a lot of research students who are pursuing their interest into a super specialized topic. While that is great and all, the government doesn't just give funding to people to research whatever the fuck they want, so the scientist has to at least say they are working on what the government wants them to be working on.

As it turns out, climate science was one of the things the government would sign off on no matter what was involved, so it became a nice "blanket" for all of the researchers to continue with their passion, without the government hounding on them and often times corrupting their research for special interest.

The unfortunate side effect of this loophole of sorts is that it gave extreme precedent for the government to do whatever they want in regards to climate change, because they have SO MANY SCIENTIST WHO AGREE ON THE ISSUE!! The reality is that those scientist tell the government that to get them to fuck off.

It is a very interesting problem, On one hand the pursuit of expanding our scientific knowledge, which is typically what the special interest of the scientist in question is, is of course very important. But on the other hand, does the government not have a right to dictate what their research money is used on?

I don't know what the solution is to this problem, but the current way is quite cancerous, and cannot last. Bureaucratic influence will always be an issue in research.

>Bureaucratic influence will always be an issue in research.
an issue in public research*

Wrong.

(you)
sorry man that's all i got. But I don't live in the woods. You were correct about the rest though.

I brush on your question in The short answer is that the scientist conduct the research in tandem, and just manage their time enough to keep the officials happy. So long as they are meeting the expectations of their bosses, what they do with their extra time doesn't concern too much.

You think a scientist would do that?
Tell lies for more funding?

Grants are actually quite difficult to get as it is a very competitive process. Many climatologists have good research, but the funding is not there to support all of them. Along with an application, they must submit a budget on how exactly they will spend the money. Applications are accepted based on prior research, the new research in which the grant money is being applied for, and how the money will be spent.

Since a budget is accepted as well, scientists are in fact not pocketing this money. Many researchers work for a university, and this grant money is actually given to the university, rather than the researcher. This gives two groups oversight on the money: the group that financially backed the grant, and the university which is responsible for the ethical disbursement of the money.

The thought that scientists simply make up research to pocket money is wrong in so many ways. Many groups that support these grants have checks in place to prevent this very practice.

the majority of Americans don't buy into your false religion.
Go to China and sell your bullshit faggot.

Didn't spicey specifically say the actions taken were by the agencies themselves? Like EPA to EPA employees for violating their own department rules and also what this user said
I just don't get why everyone is saying Trump did it and now there's a scientist march soon? How fucking retarded.

>conduct the research in tandem,
That is to say, they are typically dedicated to their personal project, and work on the official project to secure funding. The willingness of the scientist to fudge their report typically correlates to how much they are into their pet project. Some people simply don't care outside of their primary focus.

>Literally stated that he was baiting
>still baits
lad.

THIS DUDE KNOWS WHAT'S UP

This is how things actually work.

This is statistically wrong, as 59% of Americans accept the costs to keep climate change in check.

people-press.org/2016/12/08/3-political-values-government-regulation-environment-immigration-race-views-of-islam/#majority-of-americans-say-environmental-regulations-are-worth-the-cost

Because is too early ,to start the PURGE

Sorry mate, had a few minutes to kill before dinner.

>science
>settled

Pick one.

The EPA tweeting is not an infringement of free speech

That's like Facebook telling its employees they can't tweet shit on behalf of Facebook without management review

Your a fucking retard

I was never polled on this...so your 59% thing is as much BS as hillary's 98.5 percent chance of bagging the election.

Who conducts these polls? Tell them to stop taking my tax dollars to fund hiipyfag research.

>(((government scientists)))

Thinking about this more, Trump's strictness in regard to federal grant funding is probably a good thing. There has been an epidemic of fake science that came about a little while before fake news became so big. These are typically connected, as fake news relies on fake science to validate it.

Perhaps with Trump's big push against fake news, fake science will get hit as well. Fake science is tricky, in that a layman won't understand it is fake unless they themselves do research on it. Due to this, it is a lot harder to put a stop to the spread of falsehoods.

I'm just reminded of the "health science" craze back in the 80s(i think?). Fake science everywhere! Anything to push products.

The freeze on grants has been lifted, you know.

Wow less regulations and I don't have to worry about new developing ones? I'm gonna invest more into putting my company in the USA

>implying scientists work for the EPA

in general, no, because there is nothing phds love to do more than chew out other phds when they disagree with them, to the point of brutality.
t. phd student

I gave the source. You can debate their methods with them.

Not really interested in fake polls, but thanks for responding anyway.

You are knowledgeable. Did you know that the grant and media freeze will end Friday?

If the holocaust is real, why do you have to arrest holocaust deniers?

You don't

FAKE NEWS
thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/overnights/316200-overnight-energy-trump-team-says-epa-climate-work-is

govtrack.us/congress/bills/106/hconres107/text

Never forget

because they're public servants. saying an FBI agent can't tweet about a case isnt muh freespeech.

you need to calm down and stop jumping at shadows, just cool it with the dictator angle for a bit. its not a real article