emails reveal Trump Admiin censoring USDA staff regarding climate

>In contrast to these newly contentious climate terms, Moebius-Clune wrote that references to economic growth, emerging business opportunities in the rural US, agro-tourism and “improved aesthetics” should be “tolerated if not appreciated by all”.

>In a separate email to senior employees on 24 January, just days after Trump’s inauguration, Jimmy Bramblett, deputy chief for programs at the NRCS, said: “It has become clear one of the previous administration’s priority is not consistent with that of the incoming administration. Namely, that priority is climate change. Please visit with your staff and make them aware of this shift in perspective within the executive branch.”

>Bramblett added that “prudence” should be used when discussing greenhouse gases and said the agency’s work on air quality regarding these gases could be discontinued.

>Other emails show the often agonized discussions between staff unsure of what is forbidden. On 16 February, a staffer named Tim Hafner write to Bramblett: “I would like to know correct terms I should use instead of climate changes and anything to do with carbon ... I want to ensure to incorporate correct terminology that the agency has approved to use.”

>On 5 April, Suzanne Baker, a New York-based NRCS employee, emailed a query as to whether staff are “allowed to publish work from outside the USDA that use ‘climate change’”. A colleague advises that the issue be determined in a phone call.

>Some staff weren’t enamored with the new regime, with one employee stating on an email on 5 July that “we would prefer to keep the language as is” and stressing the need to maintain the “scientific integrity of the work”.

>In a statement, USDA said that on 23 January it had issued “interim operating procedures outlining procedures to ensure the new policy team has an opportunity to review policy-related statements, legislation, budgets and regulations prior to issuance”.

>The statement added: “This guidance, similar to procedures issued by previous administrations, was misinterpreted by some to cover data and scientific publications. This was never the case and USDA interim procedures will allow complete, objective information for the new policy staff reviewing policy decisions.”

>Kaveh Sadeghzadeh of the Natural Resources Conservation Service added that his organisation “has not received direction from USDA or the administration to modify its communications on climate change or any other topic”.

>Trump has repeatedly questioned the veracity of climate change research, infamously suggesting that it is part of an elaborate Chinese hoax. The president has started the process of withdrawing the US from the Paris climate agreement, has instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to scrap or amend various regulations aimed at cutting greenhouse gases, and has moved to open up more public land and waters to fossil fuel activity.

>The nomenclature of the federal government has also shifted as these new priorities have taken hold. Mentions of the dangers of climate change have been removed from the websites of the White House and the Department of the Interior, while the EPA scrapped its entire online climate section in April pending a review that will be “updating language to reflect the approach of new leadership”.

>“These records reveal Trump’s active censorship of science in the name of his political agenda,” said Meg Townsend, open government attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity.

>“To think that federal agency staff who report about the air, water and soil that sustains the health of our nation must conform their reporting with the Trump administration’s anti-science rhetoric is appalling and dangerous for America and the greater global community.”

>The Center for Biological Diversity is currently suing several government agencies, including the EPA and state department, to force them to release information on the “censoring” of climate change verbiage.

>While some of the changes to government websites may have occurred anyway, the emails from within the USDA are the clearest indication yet that staff have been instructed to steer clear of acknowledging climate change or its myriad consequences.

>US agriculture is a major source of heat-trapping gases, with 15% of the country’s emissions deriving from farming practices. A USDA plan to address the “far reaching” impacts of climate change is still online.

>However, Sam Clovis, Trump’s nomination to be the USDA’s chief scientist, has labeled climate research “junk science”.

>Last week it was revealed that Clovis, who is not a scientist, once ran a blog where he called progressives “race traders and race ‘traitors’” and likened Barack Obama to a “communist”.

>Censoring

Climate science is not real science.

It doesn't follow the scientific method and is nothing more than globalist garbage

>>167135
>Wants to actualize climate change to prove its real
k

>>167135
How are people like this created?

>>167156
Through sexual intercourse. Are American schools really this bad?

>>167156
>>167157
>>167150

>It's actual science because we say it is
>We don't have to use the scientific method
>lol republitards r so stupid they don't believe in science

>>167122
>“Climate change” is in the “avoid” category, to be replaced by “weather extremes”
Jesus Christ. The two terms don't even mean the thing.

>>167156
>How are people like this created?
Massive propaganda campaigns.

>>167160
>It's actual science because we say it is
It's actual science because it creates and experimentally tests models of nature.

>We don't have to use the scientific method
Have you ever read a climatology paper? They definitely use the scientific method.
You probably shouldn't judge a field by what random bloggers on the internet say about it.

>lol republitards r so stupid they don't believe in science
Stop pretending reality is a partisan issue, and then maybe people will stop laughing at you.

>>167135
How specifically does it not follow the scientific method? I keep hearing people say that but they never explain their reasoning.

>>167350

It starts with the conclusion and works backwards

>>167353
no, they were looking at what was causing changes that should not occur, they came to the conclusion that it's caused by human activity. Now they are backing it up.

If it's so fake, why are they so afraid of people talking about it? If it's so false, why can't they just prove it, instead of just trying to shut down the conversation? Science has been conducted for the entirety of human history, when has trying to silence it ever accomplished anything, besides just delaying the results?

>>167361
It's what we call making money, that's the result.

>>167353
In what ways are they doing that? Do you have any specific examples?

I'm fucking tired of nationalists who can't accept their way doesn't always work, and have to defend it by shouting out the opposition. If an enormous meteor is coming to earth, and America doesn't have enough military power to blow it out of the sky, should we just stick our heads in the sand? No! If the world may be facing an issue we should take all appropriate measures to acknowledge it, and try to come up with a solution using the entirety of human power, no matter which imaginary border it's across, or which culture produced it. Acknowledging we're all humans doesn't mean you have to follow a different faith, or start speaking a different language, but you may sometimes have to accept help and help others out so we don't all suffer. Separate climate change from your argument from nationalism and you'll find yourself far more open to accepting the science because it makes sense, it just requires worldwide effort.

>>167350
It is literally weather psychology. Non-existent peer review and ideology driven research.

>>167367
nope

>>167368
Lad, these people are taught by the people who made models that assumed every city in the world was made of gasoline soaked rags and every strategic target was a city.
Modeling is not their strong suit, yet that is the entirety of their field.

>>167363
These mouthbreathers don't do examples, they just believe what they're told and plug their ears forever.

>>167370
>everyone I disagree with is a nazi white supremacist kkk racist sexist xenophobe capitalist

>>167371
You can't just put words in someone's mouth anon, that's disingenuous.

>>167374
>that's disingenuous.
So is character defamation.

>>167369
I dont understand. You are talking about assumption about the future right? Not data about emission from last 100 years?

>>167376
I'm trying to convey that climate science like psychology is borderline pseudoscience. Science can be used to aid them or support their claims, but the actual work that falls under the umbrella of each isn't science.
It's like calling an anthropologist a scientist because he used radiocarbon dating, it's just not true.

>>167377
I'm still waiting for specific examples.

>>167377
So are most of social sciences. But when it comes to climate they are using actual data not just wishful thinking. We know that climate is changing because of data, and observation. And I think it was proven that human activite started the chain reaction.

>>167382
>But when it comes to climate they are using actual data not just wishful thinking
Yes and no. Real world measurements, but they also extrapolate way more than they should.

>>167386
what do you mean by that?

>>167389
Extrapolation refers to using static analysis beyond the range of your data to create values for data points that you don't know.
I mean literally that.

Interpolation: legitimate
Extrapolation: legitimate if very close to existing data, beyond that it's (typically) worthless

>>167392
I was expecting some examples, because you are just talking in general. I guess we can agree that there are two things, climate is changing and the change itself was caused by human activity. But i don't really know what is that you disagree with.

>>167396
>But i don't really know what is that you disagree with.
cataclysmic models, shitting on skepticism, and government funded research/grants for people who have presupposed results (and gov funding for soft 'sciences').

Wordspin Wars!

>>167399
Models about the future has nothing to do with that neither "climate is changing and the change itself was caused by human activity", we know what is likely to happen, we don't know how bad it will be or how long it will take, those are just hypothesis, but still from what is going on we know it will be bad and it will cost a lot of money. Skepticism is one thing, denying just because, is another. And well, I gonna be more skeptical about things that will be better for oil companies (that's already fucked us with lead back in the 20th century).

>>167150
how about some science that prove people cause it.

>>167415
We don't know what the outcome will be because we don't know the cause.

>>167504
http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

>>167508
ehh what are you even talking about. First of all yes we kinda know, 2nd you don't need to know cause to know outcome. It's not just one thing like temperature rising. We know sea level will rise, we know temperature will rise, etc. We know what will happen because of this, (like there will be less food of that kind, we gonna have problem with towns that are nearby water to show it simple) but we don't know if how bad exacly it will be and when. It's already happening.

>>167514
>We know sea level will rise
Anon, those calculations are based on all ice being above sea level. Only ice that is actually above sea level (and not floating) impacts the sea level. The sea level will not rise significantly.

>>167517
Sea level is rising and it will rise more, ice has a very little to do with sea level

>>167519
Water only experiences notable thermal expansion at like 4 degrees. What are you referring to?

>>167521
Yes, thermal expansion.But where did you get that? The lowest volume of water is at 4 degrees. Also there will be a problem with oxygen, with CO2 everything here is just chain reaction

>>167525
I thought the curve the flipped. My b.

>>167531
no problem