Donald Trump Clamping Down on Dissent in Govt Agencies

Post Reply New Topic

It's hard to tell if you're joking, but mentioning The Day After Tomorrow makes me think that. Anyone with half a brain cell knows that movie is BS. That's like saying The Core is an accurate representation of the Earth's mantle.

So you think essentially getting rid of all environmental regulations and silencing free flow of scientific information/research on global warming is the solution?

I've criticized the EPA in the past because I certainly saw flaws and thought there needed to be an overhaul and improvement but not elimination altogether any government organization to address environmental concerns and all the regulations put in place to minimize negative human impact.

There are jobs in renewable energy as well, and if the feds would get their heads out of their a**es about cannabis and hemp that would also contribute to more jobs. Economy is important but so is the air we breath and the overall environment...I'd say in the end the latter is more important since you can't breath money.

I don't think environmental regulations and trying to reduce our dependence on coal and oil would really be as devastating as you think. Besides non-renewable means it will run out, what then if we've been too lazy to move towards renewable energy and resources. I realize you can't just eliminate all coal and oil, production but so much reliance on it isn't necessary or conductive to human advancement.

Also when it comes to job loss I'd be more worried about automation and robots, taking over various menial labor jobs of course that could be adressed with universal basic income. But in the meantime, perhaps whenever I start working I will see if there are any environmental related jobs.

I also never suggested day after tommorrow stuff is happening, but its not propaganda that arctic habitats are being threatened by ice melting. Also humans contribute to things like habitat destruction, dumping pollutants in the water, not properly disposing of hazardous trash also global warming aside there is still evidence of high levels of pollution being bad for respiratory health. Its not Day After Tommorow stuff but certainly things that shouldn't be ignored.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 10 Mar 2017, 8:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There are lot and lots of people that think global warming is going to kill the entire planet in their lifetime, they are that stupid to believe something like the movie could happen and are also stupid enough to think a carbon credit scheme will actually save the planet when in reality it empowers multinational corporations further. I don't know how you could deny the apocalyptic rhetoric of a good many global warming fearmongers, think of polars bears dammit! I am prepared to take the vow of poverty or to surrender to entire economy to control of the federal government. The 'green economy' is a fascist corporatist one, if they're the cure then the planet can cook.

And there are lots of people think it is equally as stupid to deny that there is any form of climate change or global warming and that humans have no effect whatsoever on environmental issues and that there should be no concern whatsoever in regards to the environment or efforts to reduce negative human impact.

Both extremes are pretty stupid I think.

Getting rid of the EPA wouldn't get rid of all environmental regulations, it is department that has far overreached it's authority and is not authorized in the constitution. The states are the ones whose jurisdiction this rightfully should fall under, lots of states in fact already have their own environmental regulatory agencies and laws some like California are even stricter than the federal government. There is no comparable renewable energy and that's not what the EPA was involved in anyways, the war against oil and coal hurts our economy and kills the jobs of entire of regions so I don't think you really can this isn't devastating. What renewables are you even talking about, nuclear maybe? Probably not but almost all the others are straight up scams.

Remember now, Obama at the beginning of his term said that he thought energy prices necessarily needed to double! That is war against working people in this country by environmental ideologues who are not effected by the policies they advocate, look how rich Al Gore has become and the house he lives in. Look at the houses they own and the globe trotting in private jets by all these celebrities, why should I believe them when they don't apparently seem to be all that sincere? I want jobs, I want a strong economy, I want to not be reliant on the middle east for oil.

If federal employees oppose Trump in defense of scientific fact, as opposed to political ideology or corporate greed, then I say the federal employees are on the side of the angels.

I realize oil and coal is still necessary for some things, I don't think just flat out banning those industries or anything like that would be a good way to go. However there should be efforts to transition to less dependence on oil alltogether, not just foriegn oil. Not fear mongering about how it will destroy the economy if we don't continue our heavy dependence on it. I'd also certainly support help for that transition for workers in those industries, so its not a huge financial blow to them.

I suppose if Trump is just getting rid of the EPA, but wont stand in the way of states environmental regulations that wouldn't be such a bad thing....perhaps states are better fit for that since the different regions have different climates and environments anyways, though I still think some federal oversight could be useful. But if that is all Trumps trying to do by dismantling the EPA, why all the silencing of science in regards to climate change/environmental issues and human impact on it?

Climate change is the greatest threat humans have ever faced. I am including the threat of a nuclear holocaust on that list; it would still give us better odds than just ignoring what's happening. Will it kill us all within our lifetimes? Unlikely, but possible. Will it cause human extinction if our present course is not altered? Extremely likely. This isn't "ideology", this is fact. Liberals actually tend to downplay how bad this s**t actually is, while conservatives are even worse and put their fingers in their ears and say "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!".



Presidents do not staff the federal bureaucracy, and most of the important people in it have been there through multiple administrations. This is actually a good thing, as it checks the power of elected officials.

I suggest you at least attempt to understand things before condescendingly sharing your poorly reasoned opinions on them.

Is this based on fact or just your opinion?

As somebody who worked for the EPA back in the early 1990s in Australia I can tell you this "type" of government agency is there to protect people like you from serious toxic contamination of air. water and land. Attacking it is equivalent to attacking the fire service or ambulance services...pretty dumb

Industries and mining companies take plenty of short cuts in their industrial and waste emissions in order to save money for their shareholders. There are numerous examples of shady disposal methods and unregulated emissions into the environment to justify the regulation you are arguing against.

CEOs who run companies in the petroleum and mining sector find it convenient to deny global warming is man made. They lobby right wing politicians who then spout the same unscientific nonsense which you are subscribing to. The bottom line is almost all climate scientists agree that global warming is man made. Climate skeptics such as Trump base their assertions on what they are told by their lobbyists.

There are no climate skeptics. Only climate denialists.

Climate skepticism is reverse political correctness where denialists pretend to be "skeptical" to sound like they have ammunition for debate but it's based on nothing more than propoganda provided by the coal/petroleum/mining lobbyists

The climate change "scientists" are not really scientists.

They tells us the Earth's water is heating up, and the land is cooling.

However, they don't take scientific measurements of the Earth's water.

They dropped a bombshell on us a month ago, and admitted that the water temperature data was estimated based on temperature readings from ships, which they think was faulty.

They don't use fixed instrumentation , they don't use fixed points of measurement.

They use statistics and estimates to reach their conclusions.

This is not science.

So, if a climate change scientist tells you unicorns and fairies exist, don't be a denier, because anything is possible with statistics, and estimates.

And the paid shills for the corporate deniers are?

The appropriate saying is "it takes a thief to catch a thief".

The corporate thieves can spot these "scientists" a mile away.

You know, they said pretty much the same thing about the scientist who had warned us about the danger of lead poisoning, the corporate scientists saying that there was absolutely no proof that lead was harmful. So much for corporate scientists, and their alleged ability to sniff out a phoney. Or that that scientists who speak contrary to big business are fakes at all, for that matter.

First off, care to cite some sources?

If someone dedicates years of their life to learning the ins and outs of a science, and then does field work and research using the scientific method and submits their findings to peer review, that person is a scientist.Period.

There is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change; it is happening, and it is a serious threat. We're not talking about the poor polar bears, but about the end of human civilization.