Trump's War on Science

[southernhybrid]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/trump-administration-war-on-science.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

In just three years, the Trump administration has diminished the role of science in federal policymaking while halting or disrupting research projects nationwide, marking a transformation of the federal government whose effects, experts say, could reverberate for years.

Political appointees have shut down government studies, reduced the influence of scientists over regulatory decisions and in some cases pressured researchers not to speak publicly. The administration has particularly challenged scientific findings related to the environment and public health opposed by industries such as oil drilling and coal mining. It has also impeded research around human-caused climate change, which President Trump has dismissed despite a global scientific consensus.

But the erosion of science reaches well beyond the environment and climate: In San Francisco, a study of the effects of chemicals on pregnant women has stalled after federal funding abruptly ended. In Washington, D.C., a scientific committee that provided expertise in defending against invasive insects has been disbanded. In Kansas City, Mo., the hasty relocation of two agricultural agencies that fund crop science and study the economics of farming has led to an exodus of employees and delayed hundreds of millions of dollars in research.

Hundreds of scientists, many of whom say they are dismayed at seeing their work undone, are departing.

Among them is Matthew Davis, a biologist whose research on the health risks of mercury to children underpinned the first rules cutting mercury emissions from coal power plants. But last year, with a new baby of his own, he was asked to help support a rollback of those same rules. “I am now part of defending this darker, dirtier future,” he said.

This year, after a decade at the Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Davis left.

“Regulations come and go, but the thinning out of scientific capacity in the government will take a long time to get back,” said Joel Clement, a former top climate-policy expert at the Interior Department who quit in 2017 after being reassigned to a job collecting oil and gas royalties. He is now at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group.

Industry groups have expressed support for some of the moves, including a contentious E.P.A. proposal to put new constraints on the use of scientific studies in the name of transparency. The American Chemistry Council, a chemical trade group, praised the proposal by saying, “The goal of providing more transparency in government and using the best available science in the regulatory process should be ideals we all embrace.”

In some cases, the administration’s efforts to roll back government science have been thwarted. Each year, Mr. Trump has proposed sweeping budget cuts at a variety of federal agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation. But Congress has the final say over budget levels and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have rejected the cuts.

“In the past, when we had an administration that was not very pro-environment, we could still just lay low and do our work,” said Betsy Smith, a climate scientist with more than 20 years of experience at the E.P.A. who in 2017 saw her long-running study of the effects of climate change on major ports get canceled.

“Now we feel like the E.P.A. is being run by the fossil fuel industry,” she said. “It feels like a wholesale attack.”

After her project was killed, Dr. Smith resigned.

The loss of experienced scientists can erase years or decades of “institutional memory,” said Robert J. Kavlock, a toxicologist who retired in October 2017 after working at the E.P.A. for 40 years, most recently as acting assistant administrator for the agency’s Office of Research and Development.

I've quoted enough of the article so you all can get an idea what is going on regarding scientific research, but it's a long piece and you are able to access it, I suggest reading the entire thing. There are also links to other articles within my link.

This is just one more reason why we much vote this man out of office regardless of who the Democratic nominee ends up being.

So, if one votes for Trump, they are either ignorant regarding his negative influence on the environment and our health, or they simply don't care about clean water, clean air, medical research etc. That's the only conclusion that makes sense.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem is not just Trump's war on science. His cabinet members are also complicit in that. And also GOP Representatives and Senators have not opposed this war on competence and science, and are just as big a part of the problem. Loss of control of the House in 2018 helped only a bit. This seems to have been energizing younger voters who are not supporters of climate denialism, so we may see a reversal of 2016 where people did not understand just how bad trump was and how toxic Trump and a GOP congress could be. Still, even with a Democratic president and Democratic controlled Senate, which will probably happen, it will take years to recover and move forward.

Many Republicans are still morons when it comes to climate change. But Independents are now joining Democrats in wanting research and action.

https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...71-of-independent-voters-want-candidates.html

...
“How likely would you be to vote for a candidate who supports climate change solutions?”
Democrats came in at 89 percent, independents at 71 percent, and Republicans at 46 percent. On one level, that’s encouraging, but the parameters of the question aren’t totally clear. For example, even though 46 percent of Republican voters could see themselves voting for a candidate who wants to act, it doesn’t mean they’d support him or her over whichever Republican candidate was running when all issues were on the table.
...

Limbaugh and Mark Levine are still peddling science anti-intellectualism and climate change denial.

 

[southernhybrid]

Yes. I agree that it's not just Trump, but Trump has the power to see that these things happen. Without a president that works to cut scientific research and funding, it wouldn't be this bad. As some scientists in the link have said, even with a anti science president, they are still able to do their jobs without interruption. What's happening now is unprecedented.

 

[Elixir]

Trump isn't anti-science - it's just that he's as dumb as a box of rocks without the box.
Like everything else, he thinks he knows more about science than the scientists.
That is very comforting to his ignorant sycophants; they are scared shitless of those pointy-headed scientists with their particle physics and evolution and stuff.
So it's a warm fuzzy feeling to know that someone who is as dumb as they are, knows more about science than those scary people do.
The very best thing is that if Betsy DeVos gets her way, there soon won't BE any more scary scientists, just stable geniuses like Cheato.