HOUSE APPROVES BILL TO FORCE PUBLIC RELEASE OF EPA SCIENCE

Here's the point you're avoiding: what they are discussing is official business.

In their capacity as a federal employee they're challenging the head of the organization on the organizations policies, procedures and practices. They're joining other employees in those discussions, intentionally avoiding government systems to do so.

You cannot, as a government employee who works for the EPA, seek to circumvent higher authority on issues that impact the EPA, or the federal government in general. You can do so online insofar as no one knows you are a federal employee.

How many government employees have been removed because of something they tweeted or posted on facebook?

Obviously someone knows they're doing this, otherwise we wouldn't have the story.

There's going to be a lot of federal folks looking for private sector jobs very soon.

 

OK, so 5/6 of the $$ is applied to product development done by private corporations based on 1/6 R&D spending? Interesting. Sounds like a great business model once you're in the Fed money loop. I mean, the Fed funds science, keeps the resulting data secret then funds product development based on the secret "science". WOW.....what a racket!

 

Okay, I guess this is where we disagree. I think you can talk about your job without conducting official business. You can discuss your personal opposition to an organization's policies or procedures without conducting official business.

I'm not aware of any LAW that says this. As a matter of workplace conduct, seeking to circumvent higher authority can get you fired. I don't think it's ILLEGAL.

The oath that federal employees take is the same one that Congress takes -- wherein they swear to uphold the Constitution. Doing so can REQUIRE opposing the policies of higher authority, if those policies are unConstitutional.

 

You don't understand how good science is done. If someone is forwarding an hypothesis they freely offer the data so the experiment can be duplicated to verify the results. Recently activist climate scientists have been hiding their data which need not be done if their science is sound.

 

*Sigh*. Your anti-science perspective is depressing.

The federal government funds basic research for which there is no immediate profit motive -- the kind of research that is important, but which for-profit companies are unlikely to pay for.

That research is generally required to be publicized -- the federal government is not funding secret research. They can't require publication of a paper -- not all research leads to a result; sometimes it's a dead end. But if you don't publicize your results, you are unlikely to get more federal grants.

However, the federal government does NOT require that the RAW DATA of every study it helps fund be published online. Because that is not feasible or practical or even desirable in many cases, as I have detailed in previous posts.

Instead, it leaves decisions on that up to the scientists involved -- who in turn handle it according to the norms of their speciality. If the data is not sensitive, it may well be published online. If the data is sensitive, it will only be shared with qualified researchers.

For-profit companies, like any other researcher, can make use of the basic research funded by the government. That is the POINT of federal funding of basic research -- to advance general knowledge, to be used in whatever way people find to use it. We all benefit from the results -- scientific knowledge advances, and private companies develop spin-off products that enhance our lives.

 

A stupid populace is a useful populace.

 

As both sides of the issue remind me every day.

 

Obviously.

Yes, for research to be taken seriously, it must be duplicatable. Often (but not always) that means access to the data on the experiment. It depends on what is required to duplicate the results.

None of that means that the raw data must be published online for everyone to see. It just means that it must be available to the people who are attempting to duplicate the results.

Incorrect. Their data is available to qualified researchers.

In a perfect world, the data would be available to everyone, and everyone who took a look at it would be operating in good faith, trying to extend human knowledge or test hypotheses.

We do not live in a perfect world. Certain scientific topics, like climate change, attract a LOT of people who are not acting in good faith -- cranks, corporate shills, anti-government conservatives -- people with axes to grind who are NOT interested in scientific inquiry, only in pushing their ideological goals.

In such cases, scientists (IMO) are justified in trying to avoid the sort of pseudo-scientific, ideologically driven "analysis" that has been the hallmark of climate deniers for years. Unqualified people with ideological axes to grind take the raw data and twist it, trying to make all sorts of noise about the science. Their analyses invariably do one of two things:

1. Misunderstand (or deliberately distort) the data in order to arrive at their desired conclusions;
2. Take small discrepancies and try to blow them up into huge deals

Almost none of this "analysis" has withstood scrutiny by the scientific community. But that's not the goal of deniers: they know the science isn't on their side. They're just trying to raise enough doubt in the public mind to prevent government from trying to do anything about climate change.

As long as the data is available to actual researchers, I have no issue with scientists trying to keep the ideological noise down, allowing the debate to focus on the science, not the bullshit.

 

Horse Hockey. Climategate showed the problem with your good-ole-boy approach to science. If the science is sound let anyone poke holes in it other than only the often politically approved entities.

 

If people were poking holes in the science, you would have a point. They are not. Cutting off the ideological noise machine is a legitimate interest.

 

Please someone point out one honest Democrat. I believe there are none.

 

Indeed, Climategate is a prime example of the issue. Hacked emails were leaked to climate denialists, who then took emails out of context to try to pretend that climate research was a giant conspiracy.

EIGHT INVESTIGATIONS LATER, there is no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. It was bullshit denialist noise.

 

In 2005 a report was released saying that if fossil fuel consumption wasn't reduced by half the hurricane season that year was just the tip of the iceberg, we would have tens of millions of climate refugees, and the Arctic would be without ice by now. We've seen missed prediction after missed prediction by warmers, and yet we're still supposed to listen to them about policy when they won't produce anything supporting their findings except a temperature graph.

 

More bull. You seem to be afraid of too many eyes seeing beyond the true politically correct ideological noise machine. Poking holes is science.

 

LOL, out of context? You evidently only listen to the politically correct noise.

 

Utter nonsense. No context would change what the emails revealed: lies, corruption and suppression of dissenting views.

 

If the science is sound it should be freely available. There is quite literally no logical reason to refrain from making such data available to the public.

 

Whether or not it is "sound"..it BELONGS TO THE PUBLIC.

 

Does anyone ever expect the lying mfers to expose their racket? This reminds me of another work of "science" that we have to accept on faith:

FINDING REGARDING PUBLIC SAFETY INFORMATION

Pursuant to Section 7(d) of the National Construction Safety Team Act, I hereby find that the disclosure of the information described below, received by the National Institute of Standards and Technology ("NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety.

Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information:

1. All input and results files of the ANSYS 16-story collapse initiation model with detailed connection models that were used to analyze the structural response to thermal loads, break element source code, ANSYS script files for the break elements, custom executable ANSYS file, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

2. All input files with connection material properties and all results files of the LS-DYNA 47-story global collapse model that were used to simulate sequential structural failures leading to collapse, and all Excel spreadsheets and other supporting calculations used to develop floor connection failure modes and capacities.

Patrick Gallagher Director National Institute of Standards and Technology
Dated: JUL 09 2009

http://cryptome.org/nist070709.pdf

Ignorance is for your personal safety, dontcha know?

 

Amazing. These crooks need to be strung up in public...

 

Yes, out of context. Eight investigations found no evidence of wrongdoing. Yet you still insist Climategate was a thing. Why? Because you have nothing but bullshit to work with.

 

Yep, climate deniers and 9/11 truthers are birds of a feather. Thanks for demonstrating that.

 

LOL, sure thing. You evidently never took the time to look into it and still rely only on headlines.

 

Tim Kaine. He is on so many sides of every issue he is bound to consistently stumble on the truth be it intentional or not at least once

 

What idiotic nonsense. NIST's letter has nothing to do with anything other than their claim that keeping YOU ignorant is for YOUR own safety. By your invented labeling diversion, you obviously agree with NIST and the EPA that ignorance is best for YOU.