The EPA’s Science Office Just Removed the Word “Science” From Its Mission Statement

[Shadowferal]

They haven't cared about science for decades, might as well reflect that in the literature.

I think I agree with this.
After all they don't seem to give a shit about clean air and clean water until after after the inevitable happens and lawsuits fly.

Still...the agency has been constantly defunded so it really can't do the job anymore...just what the GOP wants.

[breadisfunny]

Nothing about what I said was ad hominem or a personal attack, but way to not understand what those things are. He was trying to be clever in his interpretation of my words. He wasn't clever. Get over it. Also, infracted for that? wow.

yes it was. but keep telling yourself otherwise. also lol.

[Dug]

Interesting so what we need is:

a)improve irrigation in rice fields in East Asia
n)make cows fart less
c)keep on fracking but regulate it so when you hit a problematic gas well you shut it down immediately

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/pe...-burping-cows/

Just need to start feeding seaweed to the cows!

[Dug]

Then we will somehow screw up the marine ecosystem in trying to harvest enough of that stuff and create an even bigger mess

I believe we can do sea weed farms but I'll need to check up on that. Definitely wouldn't be good digging up all the natural sea weed

[Garnier Fructis]

Incredibly difficult to fix after the fact? Removing atmospheric carbon and methane decreases temperature. This is the obverse of the claim upon which the climate change discussion rests: Adding atmospheric carbon and methane increases the temperature. Unless you can give me a reason why these effects only work one way, the only thing that is even remotely worrisome is the clathrate gun and that's hardly settled science to begin with.

There is in some sense an inertia to the thing. What we do will have effects that last for centuries. Removing carbon will decrease temperatures, on unacceptably long time scales. Even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gasses right this minute, temperatures would continue to rise for a very long time. To prevent that, we would need to do more than just remove carbon. We'd have to do some large scale geoengineering bullshit, and that's dangerous to say the least.

[Annoying]

There is in some sense an inertia to the thing. What we do will have effects that last for centuries. Removing carbon will decrease temperatures, on unacceptably long time scales. Even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gasses right this minute, temperatures would continue to rise for a very long time. To prevent that, we would need to do more than just remove carbon. We'd have to do some large scale geoengineering bullshit, and that's dangerous to say the least.

There's also the issue of non-atmospheric greenhouse gasses.


Gas trapped under permafrost being released by melting would mean that we'd have to have some way to re-freeze those areas to prevent additional warming.

[Garnier Fructis]

So in the interest of consensus, you are saying that discrepancies shouldn't be questioned? That thesis shouldn't be argued? Science is starting to sound more like religion every day. How soon does the science community get their equivalent of a pope?

The discrepancies and unknowns are debated and researched in a scientific manner. They don't do the idiotic thing of saying 'WELL, WE'VE GOT ONE THING THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, BETTER QUESTION THE ENTIRE FUCKING THEORY,' as the skeptics do.

Seriously, if we debated physics like we 'debate' climate science we'd be getting pretty much nowhere. Anomalies and discrepancies pop up in physics all the time. All. The. Time. And those discrepancies largely get solved within the framework of the theory that they purported to challenge, upon more careful analysis.

But, sometimes those anomalies lead to surprising new discoveries that do challenge the theory. And you know what happens when a largely successful theory gets replaced? It goes... nowhere!. Because a theory that's correct in almost every aspect is still correct in almost every aspect. Newtonian physics is wrong. The world is relativistic and quantum, but those theories end up being nearly indistinguishable from Newtonian physics for nearly all situations. Which is why we still fly in planes designed with wrong physics. Because it's still true.

Why is challenging groupthink terrifying? What possible good can come from the science community being sheep?

They aren't the ones being sheep.

The people who unquestioningly accept and parrot wrong and internally inconsistent arguments are the real sheep. You realize no two skeptics have the same set of arguments? You ever wonder why the fuck no skeptics are interested in sorting out the fact that they contradict each other?

I wonder why you guys never seem to notice that your guys' shit doesn't make any internal sense, and why it doesn't bother you.

- - - Updated - - -

Gas trapped under permafrost being released by melting would mean that we'd have to have some way to re-freeze those areas to prevent additional warming.

In principle we could remove that too if we had the capability to remove other carbon from the atmosphere. But we'd still be screwing ourselves to wait until that happens.

[cubby]

Well if there's no science, no one can complain about "clean water" anymore. Fake water for everyone!

Exactly. Fake news. Fake science. Fake president. Real lies.

[breadisfunny]

Exactly. Fake news. Fake science. Fake president. Real lies.

don't forget fake trees.

[BannedForViews]

I think I agree with this.
After all they don't seem to give a shit about clean air and clean water until after after the inevitable happens and lawsuits fly.

Still...the agency has been constantly defunded so it really can't do the job anymore...just what the GOP wants.

The EPA has not been defunded ever?

https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget

It fluctuates, and now has the same budget as a decade ago with fewer people, but it still has a large budget, one that has, outside of the last decade, consistently climbed year by year.

[Techno-Druid]

There's also the issue of non-atmospheric greenhouse gasses.


Gas trapped under permafrost being released by melting would mean that we'd have to have some way to re-freeze those areas to prevent additional warming.

That's why I support the concept of Pleistocene Park, the reintroduction of the Mammoth Steppe ecosystem in Siberia.

Research has shown that during winter months in Siberia, animals like horse and bison expose grass to sunlight and trample over snow, compacting it and making it colder.

Ironically, mammoths, the animals we may have played a key role in wiping out might have been (and might still be if we can clone them) vital in preventing carbon from being released from under the permafrost.

[Nadiru]

There is in some sense an inertia to the thing. What we do will have effects that last for centuries. Removing carbon will decrease temperatures, on unacceptably long time scales. Even if we were to stop emitting greenhouse gasses right this minute, temperatures would continue to rise for a very long time. To prevent that, we would need to do more than just remove carbon. We'd have to do some large scale geoengineering bullshit, and that's dangerous to say the least.

Why would these temperatures increase in a matter of decades and not decrease on at least a matching timeframe, though in practice if the causal mechanism is removed the decrease should be practically instantaneous?

[Garnier Fructis]

Why would these temperatures increase in a matter of decades and not decrease on at least a matching timeframe, though in practice if the causal mechanism is removed the decrease should be practically instantaneous?

It is in some sense a matching time frame, because again temperatures will continue to increase even if we were to stop right this moment. None of this is instantaneous.

[p0werslav3]

All you climate change deniers do realize this isn't just about 'murica???? The scientific consensus is global and cross-disciplinary.

[kyoloco]

im trying so hard to be productive...but almost everything that is happening in politics makes me want to become a drunk again...

[Nadiru]

It is in some sense a matching time frame, because again temperatures will continue to increase even if we were to stop right this moment. None of this is instantaneous.

I'm not talking about stopping, I'm talking about removing the causal mechanisms under which global warming occurs. Thus far you have not given a satisfactory answer as to why this should be the case.

[Mafic]

Deforestaton is the biggest issue in my opinion and not global warming. That is why in both IPCC reports a key mitigation strategy is to start to plant trees and wetland projects which will have major payoffs in the coming years.

1. Forests, wetlands, and associated ecosystems and ecotones are the key to being carbon traps.

2. Lack of forests and wetlands leads to increased flooding and disruption of ecosystems.

Methane increases since 1985 are linked to increased consumption of beef in the US and Asian countries. If the US and Asian countries switched to eating more chicken over beef the methane problem would literally be a non issue in the grand scheme off things regarding as a green house gas.

[Garnier Fructis]

I'm not talking about stopping, I'm talking about removing the causal mechanisms under which global warming occurs. Thus far you have not given a satisfactory answer as to why this should be the case.

Because it's not a simple linear process. The heating caused by our emissions thaws permafrost (we're not talking about seabeds either here, since you already hand-waved away clathrates) holding a huge amount of carbon. Less ice also means reduced albedo, so more heat gets absorbed instead of bouncing back.

Which means, removing our contribution isn't enough. We'd have to remove more than that and stick it all back in the ground. And unmelt the ice while we're at it. Which brings up another point as to why you can't fix this after the fact: temperature isn't the only thing that matters here. How do we reduce sea level? Reduce ocean acidity? Bring back lost glaciers? That kind of technology is centuries away if it's even possible.

[Nadiru]

Because it's not a simple linear process. The heating caused by our emissions thaws permafrost (we're not talking about seabeds either here, since you already hand-waved away clathrates) holding a huge amount of carbon. Less ice also means reduced albedo, so more heat gets absorbed instead of bouncing back.

Which means, removing our contribution isn't enough. We'd have to remove more than that and stick it all back in the ground. And unmelt the ice while we're at it. Which brings up another point as to why you can't fix this after the fact: temperature isn't the only thing that matters here. How do we reduce sea level? Reduce ocean acidity? Bring back lost glaciers? That kind of technology is centuries away if it's even possible.

Reducing sea levels is actually solved by bringing back lost ice, because ice takes up less space than liquid water to begin with. Ice, incidentally, is manufactured on an industrial scale, and has been for over a hundred years. While a glacier would be the largest work order ever put in for the ice industry, the difference here is clearly one of degree, not of kind, especially if you take ice in aggregate and fuse them together to build that glacier, rather than trying to make it all at once. Reducing ocean acidity is literally grade-school chemistry; there are a number of different paths to reducing it on a global scale. Calcium carbonate, iron filings, direct absorption, upwelling of deep seawater, you name it. There are definitely pros and cons to each one, but to claim that it's this great mystery is almost insulting.

[Varaben]

Another benefit about getting rid of the word "science" : the negativity it brings along with it because it implies a high level snobbyness, of higher educated people thinking they know more than the average person. Getting rid of heavily biased words like "science" quickly evens the playing field.

Don't higher educated people by definition know more than the average person? Are you saying the EPA should be taking advice from nonscientists on how best to protect the environment? Joe Schmo doesn't know shit about he environment, thus has no valid opinions. An uninformed opinion on scientific matters is again, by definition, uninformed and useless.

- - - Updated - - -

Deforestaton is the biggest issue in my opinion and not global warming. That is why in both IPCC reports a key mitigation strategy is to start to plant trees and wetland projects which will have major payoffs in the coming years.

1. Forests, wetlands, and associated ecosystems and ecotones are the key to being carbon traps.

2. Lack of forests and wetlands leads to increased flooding and disruption of ecosystems.

Methane increases since 1985 are linked to increased consumption of beef in the US and Asian countries. If the US and Asian countries switched to eating more chicken over beef the methane problem would literally be a non issue in the grand scheme off things regarding as a green house gas.

I don't think anyone can argue that deforestation isn't a major problem, but global climate change is right up there and I'm sure you would agree that the two are probably related. Planting more trees will help in a lot of ways, but we also have to reduce our emissions substantially. IMO, that means the govt should be incentivizing the right businesses AND disincentivizing the wrong ones. does that mean beef farmers and oil companies go out of business and people lose their jobs? Probably, but govt has to focus on long term goals. Companies have to focus on short term so their incentives just aren't aligned. Why would a business invest in solar unless it positively impacted their bottom line? Most don't. So let's change that.

Consumers have so much power here though. It takes effort but if you only bought from companies who were sustainable, green, or whatever they want to call themselves, these problems could be fixed so fast.