Trump administration is crippling science.

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, dedo said:

Anyone's guess.

Not really, no. RFK’s confirmation will have predictable results - more people will get sick and die than would otherwise have happened. What’s unknown is the breadth and depth of the damage, but that depends on specific policies implemented or rescinded, and without that knowledge you can’t make an accurate assessment 

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, dedo said:

However, the point RP makes about bias in science is true.  Recently watched a YT video from an epidemiologist scholar who claims 500 scientific publications which is amazing.

Do you mean published 500 papers? Even so, it does not really matter, as it depends on their precise area of research.

 

1 hour ago, dedo said:

Then he said that scholars like himself, that understand literature (but have never treated a single covid patient) should be the ones to make policy.  Think about that.  Someone who believes a person who reads a lot, but never did something even once, should be in charge of those who both read and do.

That again depends. If you write papers, you have to do things before you publish them (unless he just wrote reviews, which would not be ideal). So again, credibility depends a lot on what work the person has done. Scholars who understand the literature are usually folks who contributed to it, not those that just read it.

1 hour ago, dedo said:

Will this admin. make some progress or make it worse?   We shall see.

They had already taken a stab on it and we have seen what happened. They managed to cripple the folks who knew (at least somewhat) what they were doing and as a results the US under Trump had the highest death rates among Western nations.

I vividly remember the op-ed they wrote how they did not dismantle the pandemic preparedness group, but just made it leaner and more efficient. Which obviously turned out to be a lie. Now, they are kicking out those who might be able to contribute knowledge. So we are left with morons and it is clear that health care will suffer. There are no two questions about it.

58 minutes ago, swansont said:

Not really, no. RFK’s confirmation will have predictable results - more people will get sick and die than would otherwise have happened. What’s unknown is the breadth and depth of the damage, but that depends on specific policies implemented or rescinded, and without that knowledge you can’t make an accurate assessment 

Also, it is almost inevitable that health care cost will increase. Vaccination and similar efforts are the most cost-effective medical intervention there is. Reducing it by even few points, and couple it with crippling information gathering and communication by the CDC means more stress on the system.

And this is only based what they are doing right now. They do have more plans according to their playbook. Now the criticism regarding lack of transparency form the Chinese seems more ironic than ever.

[John Cuthber]

On 1/28/2025 at 1:15 PM, CharonY said:

federal researchers are not allowed in engage in "external communication".

 

On 1/28/2025 at 1:34 PM, TheVat said:

But egg prices are dropping.   Someday.   Trump will talk with the birds.  Bird flu will be over in a week.  Nobody wins when they play chicken with Trump!  

 

Would I, as a scientist, be allowed to say that egg prices are  not dropping?

From
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/eggs-us

Edited yesterday at 03:27 PM by Phi for All
Removed duplicates

[CharonY]

5 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Would I, as a scientist, be allowed to say that egg prices are  not dropping?

I mean, clearly the prices are going down, as they decided it was going down. The chart is clearly a product of DEI.

[Ken Fabian]

US Department of Agriculture has been instructed to not mention climate change on it's websites. EPA, NOAA and NASA next?

A group of coal power plant operators have asked Trump's administration for regulations around coal ash disposal (the world's no.2 biggest problem waste by quantity after CO2) be lifted and look likely to get groundwater contamination monitoring eliminated.

I don't know to what extent state based regulation can be overruled by federal. With a compliant Supreme Court, will that be much more than would ordinarily be expected?

I have long seen corruption as the bane of civilisation and the independent rule of law, making even the manageable unmanageable, the readily fixable unfixable and constraining innovation and true wealth creation in favour of zero-sum wealth redistribution; it inevitably prefers the dirty official that can be blackmailed over the clean ones that cannot. I had thought we had made a lot of progress in reducing institutional corruption and to say what I am witnessing is dismaying is understatement.

Not that intimidation doesn't work with the honest and I don't think Trump has forgotten his pledge of investigation and prosecution of his political opponents. Then there has been the unfortunate message in pardoning the insurrectionist rioters - that violence on his behalf will have Trump's Presidential protection.

Very dangerous times for the USA - and for the world at large. And then there is Canada, Mexico, Greenland, Panama - none of them enemies of the USA... not yet.

[TheVat]

El Douche admin orders shutdown of the USDA's websites on climate change.  (x-post w/Ken F)

I am wondering if USDA scientists will be devising ways to slip some of this information into remaining live webpages.  Dark times 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/31/trump-order-usda-websites-climate-crisis

 

On Thursday, the Trump administration ordered the US agriculture department to unpublish its websites documenting or referencing the climate crisis.

By Friday, the landing pages on the United States Forest Service website for key resources, research and adaptation tools – including those that provide vital context and vulnerability assessments for wildfires – had gone dark, leaving behind an error message or just a single line: “You are not authorized to access this page.” (....)

On Friday, USDA officials clarified that the content should not be deleted. “USDA needs to adhere to requirements around records retention, so Archive or Unpublish [sic] landing pages focused on climate change,” an email sent to agency public affairs directors read.

As of publication, the USDA’s Climate Hubs – helpful sites that connect producers to local programs and research – are still live, but many sites were down, including the USFS Climate Change Resource Center, Climate Action Tracker, and the National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change.

The sites featured important tools and information to help mitigate the effects of climate change and research. For now, the administration has effectively barred access to dozens of programs set up to help a wide range of communities – from farmers to firefighters – as they navigate changing conditions...

 

Edited 20 hours ago by TheVat

[CharonY]

So this is not entirely new, but the scope is quite a bit larger. During the Harper era in Canada, there was a worry that the government would make climate and related data inaccessible. I vaguely remember that US researchers, and as well as folks from NASA and EPA were involved in preserving (open) Canadian data.

In 2016 the role were almost exactly reversed, and many folks I knew in the EPA were more or less suddenly gone.This goes deeper as instead of just running to the ground, they also want to set it on fire. And they are emboldened by the fact that even folks who could benefit from the information, including farmers have to a large degree hopped on the MAGA train. If folks blame the Libs for forest fires, they do not need to worry about accountability for uncontrolled fires anymore.

If they believe that climate change is a hoax, they can stop spending monitoring its impact on resources, diseases and so on.

Some more here https://www.theverge.com/news/604484/donald-trumps-data-purge-has-begun

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

am wondering if USDA scientists will be devising ways to slip some of this information into remaining live webpages.  Dark times 

I consider it unlikely. There will be folks that take a stance and get fired, the majority likely will continue and keep their heads down. We see already that despite the vague directives, most agencies are overreacting and are erring on the side of caution for scrubbing information and resources.

Unfortunately, the threat is very effective and lasts even after it is removed. Again during Harper there were repercussions for scientists in federal agency if they were not toeing the line. After Trudeau got into power, new contracts added a clause allowing most federal scientists to be able to communicate openly. However, even then the uptake on that was limited, in large part because folks realized that their job security might depend on not rocking the boat too much.

There is, unfortunately also a bit of a similar development in universities, despite the tenure systems, but that is probably another discussion.

[John Cuthber]

13 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

US Department of Agriculture has been instructed to not mention climate change on it's websites. EPA, NOAA and NASA next?

Just as a philosophical question for everyone; compared to being forbidden to mention the Tiananmen square murders, is that
1 better
2 worse
3 pretty much the same?

 

Edited 6 hours ago by John Cuthber

[geordief]

20 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Just as a philosophical question for everyone; compared to being forbidden to mention the Tiananmen square murders, is that
1 better
2 worse
3 pretty much the same?

 

4:different but are we considering it from pov of enforcing censorship of ideas or of the practical consequences  of the two different  actions?

Tienanmen censorship is potentially  redeemable   but the  censorship to enforce  climate denialism  carries consequences that  in all likelihood cannot be undone.

 

Censorship is not a tool  that should never be in the locker  but its overuse shines a light  into our darker side (most recently  I was reminded of the book burning in pre war Germany -and the acquiescence  of much of the public in  the spectacle)

I wonder if Trump will feel emboldened to publicly  reveal  a hero worship for "AH" as his mind deteriorates further.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Just as a philosophical question for everyone; compared to being forbidden to mention the Tiananmen square murders, is that
1 better
2 worse
3 pretty much the same?

 

It's not a question of which kind of information is forbidden; it's whether factual information should be suppressed.

In this specific instance, you're comparing a single event to an entire array of statistics, logistics, assistance and contacts, which, datum for datum, would be more like disappearing the history of Asia. As to better and worse, which harms you more, forgetting the Battle of the Little Big Horn or forgetting to put on your clothes before you go out in winter? 

[TheVat]

15 hours ago, CharonY said:

Unfortunately, the threat is very effective and lasts even after it is removed. Again during Harper there were repercussions for scientists in federal agency if they were not toeing the line. After Trudeau got into power, new contracts added a clause allowing most federal scientists to be able to communicate openly. However, even then the uptake on that was limited, in large part because folks realized that their job security might depend on not rocking the boat too much.

Sounds like there is that element of anxiety, as there has been here, that the right-wing can come back to power at any time.  I think you are correct that climate change info will be thoroughly purged from government websites and there will be little chance of even veiled references to it.  I think our Department of Interior also has quite a bit of climate information online.  I wonder if this suppression virus will also spread to public universities, especially those in Red states and those more dependent on federal money.  I expect the U of Maine, for example, would be vulnerable, given their institute for climate change.

[CharonY]

I think there will be a power struggle, after all the whole university system would be at peril if they acquiesced en masse. But who knows. We are pretty much in a one step forward and half a dozen steps backwards situation.