In all seriousness though, the most important bit wasn't even clarified by the article:
The agency says it is reviewing spending on all projects that cost more than $100,000.
So is it actually true and I'm supposed to be manipulated into outrage due to cherry picking this one project? Or is it false and I'm supposed to be actually outraged at this shadowy deceitful action?
Just take him at his word. He doesn't need a study telling him coal is unhealthy.. he already has a plan, and he doesn't care what this study says. Therefore it is 100% a waste (to him).
It's not shadowy or deceitful.. he has been right up front with everyone on his anti-science, anti-climate change, and pro-coal agenda.
All administrations do that.
Politics always drives what gets government research funding and what doesn't. Politics defines what is "legitimate" and what isn't, and those shift over time.
You're citing research that was never started.
The US spends more for worse outcomes on entitlements like health care, because we refuse to optimize it.
It's very dangerous to call defunding of sciences and regulatory oversight to be "wasteful" spending. They are both inexpensive and tend to be valable for decades to come.
Maybe Trump, his team, and the Republican majority in every branch of government could do something positive about entitlement spending? It'd be great to get back to a US where we actually spend non-trivial money on core science.
It's talk like that which leads to bloated budgets that never get resolved because everything falls in that category to someone.
Well, sure there is: return on investment. If there is one thing history shows us, it is that scientifically minded investment is almost never wasted. Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public.
Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech".
When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort.
The weasel words in that are "almost never".
If something has merit then let it stand on its merit.
> Our lives are better in many, many ways because purely scientific (or even engineering) endeavors we're funded by the public.
Sure and I'm not saying to block them all. I'm saying it's fine to take a look at them individually, there are no sacred cows, and labeling something "____ Science" doesn't make it beyond reproach.
> Unlike, say, funding Nazi political campaigns under the guise of "freedom of speech".
That was quick. Usually it takes more than one reply before the Nazi references come out.
> When you're optimizing a program, you identify the biggest performance problems, address their root cause, fix those, then re-evaluate. You don't start cherry picking tiny constant gains out of the system and expect to succeed. All that does is waste time and misdirect effort.
Everything about how the Federal government operates is a form of cherry picking. It's a side effect of having limited time and funds. The executive branch decides what they're going to follow up on.
If you're upset that your particular cherries aren't the ones being picked, and it really seems like that's the root of your dissent, then so be it. That's hardly scientific though. That's just being a sore loser.
So you request a specific approach with reason and care offered, but base this on the generalism, "Science is not sacred?" Seems contratradictory but okay...
Being specific, why wouldn't we carefully measure the impact of private industry on public health? Private industry isn't on the hook for health emergencies, the public is. So we shut this down because... "waste?"
Given the the ongoing phenomenon of our executive parroting nonsense, pseudoscientific marketing speak like "clean coal" it certainly appears to be the executive helping the coal industry with it's long-standing and well-documented agenda of stifling public research and denying transparency.
> If you're upset that your particular cherries aren't the ones being picked, and it really seems like that's the root of your dissent, then so be it. That's hardly scientific though. That's just being a sore loser.
I don't get why cancelling an ongoing public health research project is "my cherries". If the coal industry and their legacy, heavily subsidized, environmentaly damaging, largely export-driven, minimally job creating industry is causing public health crisis, I do not want to further reward them.
It's their cherries you're proposing to pick, all the while suggesting that scientifically driving inquiry into public health is a luxury we may not be able to afford.
To which I ask: why? What's in it for anyone? Why are you proposing that defunding public health and environmental research is fair but coal industry subsidies are conveniently absent from your austerity program. Why?
Why is this your cherries and why should the public not only be on the hook for long term health and cleanup issues, but be forbidden from even asking questions about said potentialities? Can't we at least study and plan for potential expenses?
> Being specific, why wouldn't we carefully measure the impact of private industry on public health? Private industry isn't on the hook for health emergencies, the public is. So we shut this down because... "waste?"
Sure but there's plenty of other things we should be measuring too. Canceling one doesn't mean we're against measuring things. It just means that the executive branch has prioritized other things above this particular one. That's a natural side effect of limited resources.
> Given the the ongoing phenomenon of our executive parroting nonsense, pseudoscientific marketing speak like "clean coal" it certainly appears to be the executive helping the coal industry with it's long-standing and well-documented agenda of stifling public research and denying transparency.
I'm pretty sure President Obama is the one that championed the phrase "Clean Coal". It didn't make much sense when he said it either (though sequestration is interesting).
> I don't get why cancelling an ongoing public health research project is "my cherries". If the coal industry and their legacy, heavily subsidized, environmentaly damaging, largely export-driven, minimally job creating industry is causing public health crisis, I do not want to further reward them.
So go make some money and fund a project to research the negative effects of things you don't like. Or lobby your representatives to do so. Or organize your fellow citizens to elect a group of officials that will do so.
It's "your cherries" because you're clearly offended by something in this action.
> It's their cherries you're proposing to pick, all the while suggesting that scientifically driving inquiry into public health is a luxury we may not be able to afford.
What we can afford is a sliding scale that has to factor in deficit spending and taxation levels. If you're of the opinion that budgets should be balanced and taxes should be low, then you have to be more selective in what you can afford.
> To which I ask: why? What's in it for anyone? Why are you proposing that defunding public health and environmental research is fair but coal industry subsidies are conveniently absent from your austerity program. Why?
I haven't proposed any specific policy proposals in this thread. All I've claimed from the beginning is that I think we need to look at funding proposals individually. Just because something is "for the public good", "involves public health", "will further science", does not mean the Federal government can or should spend money on it.
Similarly just because the prior administration funded a project does not mean the current one must continue it. If that were true would you be standing behind every executive order that President Trump puts forward, regardless of the outcome of future elections?
But you've shown very clearly that you're against measuring THIS specific thing. You've authored multiple long posts defending the idea that we can and should defund this specific study.
You've taken the default position that the majority of people upset over this are upset about the concept of defunding science. While there are concerns like that present here, we're discussing how concerning it is that Trump, who's shown himself to be anti-modern-energy & anti-environmental-regulation, is going to further damage the future of the US energy economy with actions like this.
> I'm pretty sure President Obama is the one that championed the phrase "Clean Coal".
He said it a few times, then distanced himself from it as it came out what an absolute fraud it is. His admin also kicked off this effort we're describing, so maybe we can balance the accounting for this one instance.
> It didn't make much sense when he said it either (though sequestration is interesting).
Thanks, Wikipedia. Carbon Sequestration is indeed linked off the "Clean Coal" page, but is ultimately an unrelated topic. Indeed, multiple carbon sequestration efforts are underway and they in no way justify the use of coal power plants or offset the damage of coal mining.
> So go make some money and fund a project to research the negative effects of things you don't like. Or lobby your representatives to do so. Or organize your fellow citizens to elect a group of officials that will do so.
We have done all these things, and part of the success of those efforts was the Obama administration kicking off these studies. But thanks for recapping history and implying that no one has done anything, thus far.
> It's "your cherries" because you're clearly offended by something in this action.
Offended? No, that'd imply that I'm surprised and was expecting better. I don't. The Trump industry is meticulously dismantling as much climate science, environmental regulation, and health & safety oversight as they can. This administration makes the W. Bush admin look positively pro-science.
> If you're of the opinion that budgets should be balanced and taxes should be low, then you have to be more selective in what you can afford.
But again, you show up here to say that tiny sums of cost for informing regulatory oversight are bad. You've dodged multiple attempts by multiple people to engage on subsidization, defense, and entitlement inefficiency. You've dodged or ignored it.
> All I've claimed from the beginning is that I think we need to look at funding proposals individually.
Your actions have demonstrated very clearly: you're not interested in balancing the budget. You're interested in defunding this science. That's why I asked Why. I repeat: Why are you interested in defending the decision to defund a study on the coal industry's health & safety impact?
You keep talking about how we should consider specifics, but you yourself refuse to address the specifics of this effort nor the more constrained domain of US budget balancing. This is why people don't believe you when you say this, it seems more like a quotable defense than a description of your actions in these threads.
> Similarly just because the prior administration funded a project does not mean the current one must continue it.
Trump & the Republican hose have made it pretty clear that the opposite is true: if the Obama admin started it, it should be erased. Too bad they're all so bad at their jobs.
I totally missed this in my reply, but in 2017 if folks are frequently calling you a Nazi it probably isn't a Seinfeld joke.
You also missed that I was referring to small minded people jumping to using the word "Nazi" when commenting on anything that involves the President or executive branch.
But after Trump has repeatedly equovacated for and defended the honor literal, flag carrying neo-nazis, I feel comfortable directly addressing the executive's actions with these words. I think he's shown he's genuinely racist, and wants to help execute a racist agenda.
But my original post was referring to political "equal funding" laws that give money to any group that can get signatures on a page to run for office. You're just defensive about the executives politics, so you felt this was an attack.
Or something.