SEE UPDATE ON EPA AT END OF THIS ARTICLE
These real vs. alternative facts have been in the news the last couple of days. Here’s a real fact for those that think and live in alternative world.
Trump silences scientists at EPA, USDA A message sent to EPA staff on Monday prohibits staff from creating press releases, blogs, messages, or any social media postings concerning their taxpayer funded work. The US Department of Agriculture has banned scientists and other employees in its main research division from publicly sharing everything from the summaries of scientific papers to USDA-branded tweets as it starts to adjust to life under the Trump administration.
Trump administration tells EPA to freeze all grants, contracts “They’re trying to freeze things to make sure nothing happens they don’t want to have happen, so any regulations going forward, contracts, grants, hires, they want to make sure to look at them first,” said Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an industry-backed group that has long sought to slash the authority of the EPA.
Commerce nominee Ross promises to protect “peer-reviewed research” at NOAA: “No valid reason to keep peer reviewed research from the public.” [link]
Trump administration tells EPA to cut climate page from website The employees were notified by EPA officials on Tuesday that the administration had instructed EPA’s communications team to remove the website’s climate change page, which contains links to scientific global warming research, as well as detailed data on emissions.
Here is why Trump can do these things:
Article 2 of the Constitution on the Executive Branch spells it out:
Excerpt of the key section:
Clause 1. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Here the Framers spell out several of the president’s more important powers. First and foremost, he is commander-in-chief of the military. Second, he is the boss of the heads of all the civilian departments of government; the bit here about requiring their written opinions provides the constitutional basis for the cabinet. And third, he has the power to pardon individuals convicted of crimes.
Basically, the civilian departments such as EPA, USDA and NOAA now work for President Trump, with the Directors of these agencies working with the administration to further the President’s policies.
You may ask: What about academic freedom for government research scientists? Forget about it, it doesn’t exist. Scientists working in government labs, agencies, etc. work on scientific problems or technologies that further the administrations interests. Does this mean that it is legitimate for them to torque scientific findings in the direction of the administrations interests? No. Rather, it means that government employed scientists shall now work on projects that are of interest to the Trump administration.
That the Trump administration has different policy priorities than the Obama administration should be obvious to everyone by now. It seems that climate change is on the ‘hot seat’; I also infer from the attention being paid to the USDA is that GMO’s are on the ‘hot seat.’
These agencies under President Obama were infused with Obama’s ideology, particularly the EPA and NOAA (I know less about the USDA). Has this led to unethical behaviors in these agencies? I do know of one example, and I have post planned for Feb 5, stay tuned.
Source. (read more)
So, Trump has constitutional power behind this. Whiners about this should remember that Obama made 275 executive orders during his presidency.
The EPA climate web page has no original data there, they rely on NOAA, NASA, etc. Mostly, it is just EPA opinion. I predict there won’t be any significant loss.
We are in the ERA of post-normal politics, where POTUS plans to use his constitutionally granted power to restore balance to our government and bureaucracy, and doesn’t care one whit if some people are offended by it.
UPDATE: InsideEPAClimate is reporting this –
Trump EPA To ‘Stand Down’ For Now On Website Climate Data Removal Plans
EPA is temporarily suspending its plans to remove the main climate change page from the agency’s website, amid news reports that the page was slated to be removed Jan. 25, though the Office of General Counsel (OGC) has been tasked with reviewing the implications of removing some material, according to an agency source.
UPDATE2: I think it is safe to shut it down. The wayback machine has been furiously archiving it this past month:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://www.epa.gov/climatechange
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If Trump can get EPA to drop requirements for those hideous vapor proof fuel can spouts…he will really be an American Hero.
(You know the ones…they protect the earth by forcing us to spill gasoline all over it.)
+1
But now as I recall that was the result of a successful lawsuit against a gas can manufacturer. The WSJ had an editorial about it a few years ago. I don’t remember the details but someone got a lot of money blaming the gas can for their misfortune. Similar to the lady who won a million dollar award for spilling McDonalds coffee on herself.
The hot coffee lady at least had some merit to her case. She suffered third-degree burns. Last I checked, it’s not standard restaurant procedure to heat the coffee to flesh-eating temps.
All coffee is hot. All coffee will burn you if you spill on yourself fresh out of the pot.
The other customers wanted the coffee to be hot enough that it would still be warm by the time they got to the office.
The lady spilled the coffee because she took the top off the cup then put it between her legs while driving.
The lady was an idiot and had no grounds for her suit.
She won because juries tend to view insurance companies as piggy banks that they can use to pass out free money to sympathetic clients.
MarkW says: “All coffee is hot.”
https://www.dunkindonuts.com/dunkindonuts/en/menu/beverages/icedbeverages/coffee0/iced_coffee.html
Yep!
Here’s an alternative statistic for ya!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President
President Trump has signed over 140 executive orders per year since entering office but Obama only signed 34.6 per year. There’s an egregious abuse of power right there!!!
I wonder how many executive orders Obama signed in his first week.
Extrapolating 3 days activity out over an entire year has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve seen this year.
Obama signed 5 in his first week, so Trump is issuing them at twice the rate so far. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/executive_orders.php?year=2009&Submit=DISPLAY
A minuscule difference.
Only those who are only interested in promoting fallacies care.
Wait a year, then compare then number both signed in a year.
PS: Obama signed more EO’s than did any previous president. That’s a lot of EO’s to cancel.
MARKW provides us with another alternative-fact: ” Obama signed more EO’s than did any previous president.”
But the winner is: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/
.
.
FDR
Just too subtle I guess.
I thought the number of exclamation marks would give me away. I didn’t think I would need to spell it all out, what with the title of the post … the cartoon at the top … the obviously left-leaning data-mining excercise that falls into the ‘anything to trash Trump’ camp remit …
But, just like the mainstream medias’ headlines being what sticks no matter how many retractions, how much backpeddaling and any number of apologies after the event – If you don’t come back to this post you may forever colour any of my rambllngs with the impression you picked up above.
So, for future reference [thinking only of the children] I mostly gave up on fighting the nonsense after this post on my climate related blog:
http://www.agwbs.com/agw-is-fake/trust-me-im-a-climatologist.html
btw MarkW – Obama signed 5 in his first five days. Obama signed less EOs than all except GHW Bush, Gerald Ford and JFK. You then have to go back to McKinley to find another who signed less then he. Everyone else since signed more.
Trump has a lot of bummers orders to rescind.
markw – twice the rate is a miniscule difference. yeah, right.
so in less than a WEEK in office you find stats for his first YEAR in office? amazing stuff.
You guys – do we really need an /sarc tag everytime someone takes the piss?
I wonder about some of the guys on ‘my side’ in this war I really do.
Maybe Bill Taylor got it but also missed his /sarc tag?
Sorry, I thought I was cracking a joke. I’ll go away again now.
Henry’s own link shows that he has only signed 10 as of yesterday. LMAO
@ur momisugly Henry Galt,
We can “take the piss” as good as anyone.
That’s all it was.
Relax.
Most of Trump’s executive orders are being used to cancel Obama’s executive orders. Obama’s executive orders were extra-Constitutional (illegal), and Trump is just putting everything back in order and making the rules conform to the Constitutional.
Alternative-constitutional…
HA! };>)
The pro-warmers have been trying to and succeeded in silencing the questioning of global warming for years now.
This is their own medicine and they should just take it.
When I worked for the quasi-independent Postal Service, (before Twitter, etc) there was no way in hell I would have the authority to release anything internal to the business or represent my views as connected with my employment – that’s what out public liaison officer did – and the legal staff. Thinking that one works in an organization and can defy one’s boss and say what the heck they wanted whenever they wanted to is ludicrous. There were many policies and decisions I disagreed with, but I always had a clear choice within the law: Shut up or move on. Whistle blowing is another kettle of fish – very much outside this discussion.
Speaking of alternate worlds, Hypestat must be in the Ctrl-Alt-Del Universe too.
They claim this site is in NY and has 10 unique visitors per day…
http://whatsupwiththat.com.hypestat.com/
By the way, we’re hours away from THREE HUNDRED MILLION!
I believe I had 30 quatros on 5pm central from last week.
Did you know that the site you mentioned is NOT this site (wattsup….) but is a site named whatsup…, entirely different.
Did I misunderstand you?
jw
Just read there will be a “scientists” march on Washington in April.
Expect to see John Holdren make a big scene in front of the White House Gate, with MSM cameras rolling, where he will denounce the President and Cabinet and Government and end by tossing his security badge to the White House over the Gate, thus becoming Persona Non Gratis to the White House.
Popcorn is popping! Ha ha
It was another good day ‘in the news’!
God Bless America and all who love Her!
Florida shut the FDACS up about Globur Clamup Warmun last year. Its not something they’re paid to deal with or have the authority to discuss.
The usual arch global warming propagandist site CBC could not resist, signed by Nicole Mortillaro:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/us-agencies-trump-muzzling-science-1.3951472
Would be funny to see Mann and consorts walking under snow denouncing global warming…
When a country has to gag its scientists to ensure they don’t release information as to what is happening to your environment, you know you are in deep trouble.
the EPA still publishes plenty of information … just thru approved channels … don’t be a moron …
And yet you are all for “gagging” anyone who does not submit to your leftist ideology. Funny how that works.
And when a “Scientist” refuses to provide access to the data used in producing their work thereby making their work irreproducible, that really isn’t science then.
And when the Empirical Data requires constant adjustments to realign with Model Output, this too isn’t science.
Both of which happen in Climate Science, which apparently isn’t really science then.
What’s just horrifying is that the EPA, the DOE and the DofAg have signed agreements and treaties with foreign powers and or international bodies.
These agreements are being used to enforce behind our backs domestic policies on energy production and agriculture.
That is why it was so significant that the questions regarding attendance in Rio and Paris were asked. The work will never be over until these agreements and massive payments are all found out and publicized.
If I had one meeting with the President, I would ask that the Administration please thoroughly investigate the Department of Agriculture’s five year agreements with China. And I would suggest that the new Administration consider Leonard Gianessi for his expertise and knowledge about the importance of the simple, effective fumigants, pesticides, and fertilizers which are being quietly banned through “trade” agreements with China and Europe.
To illustrate the insanity of blocking all use of pesticides, look at the utter failure of the Forestry Department. Millions of acres have been seized from the states by the federal government, and under their mismanagement and poor science, beetles and fires have devastated lands which should have been managed, protected and used by the states for logging/replanting, mining, recreation and preservation.
re: “the EPA, the DOE and the DofAg have signed agreements and treaties with foreign powers and or international bodies.”
Cite please, because, from: https://diplomacy.state.gov/discoverdiplomacy/diplomacy101/issues/170661.htm
we have this alternative ‘take’:
A TREATY IS a formal, written agreement between sovereign states or between states and international organizations. In the United States, treaties are negotiated through the executive branch, which includes the Department of State. Once the negotiators have accepted the terms of the treaty, the president sends the treaty to the U.S. Senate for its “advice and consent” on ratification, or endorsement.
Here is the ref for the China-USDA agreement:
Des Moines, Iowa, Feb. 16, 2012—Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and China’s Minister of Agriculture Han Changfu today signed an historic Plan of Strategic Cooperation that will guide the two countries’ agricultural relationship for the next 5 years. The plan was signed as part of the U.S.-China Agricultural Symposium held today at the World Food Prize Hall of Laureates. The symposium focused on bilateral cooperation in the areas of food safety, food security and sustainable agriculture, as well as enhanced business relationships between the two countries.
“This symposium and plan are a product of a vision I share with my dear old friend Minister Han for the United States and China to work more collaboratively in the future to benefit our nations and agriculture around the world,” Vilsack said.
“This plan builds on the already strong relationship our nations enjoy around agricultural science, trade, and education. It looks to deepen our cooperation through technical exchange and to strengthen coordination in priority areas like animal and plant health and disease, food security, sustainable agriculture, genetic resources, agricultural markets and trade, and biotechnology and other emerging technologies,” he added.
As far as the EPA heads attending Paris and Rio (which were COPs for international environmental agreements), you were there for that. Richard Windsor, etc.
Next ref for the UN-EPA agreements:
alcheson November 7, 2015 at 3:06 pm
“The TPP gives the UN power to make the US adhere to all of the EPA’s environmental laws, including anything agreed to in Paris. It also gives the UN power to veto any weakening of the EPA regulations at any point in the future. If we strictly enforce ALL of the current or future EPA regulations in EVERY state then we can be fined BILLIONS for damages and restitution. Below are some of the relevant sections.
Article 20.1: Definitions – Environmental Law
– for the United States, an Act of Congress or regulation promulgated pursuant to an Act of Congress that is enforceable by action of the central level of government;
(EPA currently has this power)
Article 20.12-9. Where a Party has defined the environmental laws under Article 20.1 to include only laws at the central level of government (first Party), and where another Party (second Party) considers that an environmental law at the sub-central level of government of the first Party is not being effectively enforced by the relevant sub-central government through a sustained or recurring course of action or inaction in a manner affecting trade or investment between the Parties, the second Party may request a dialogue with the first Party. The request shall contain information that is specific and sufficient to enable the first Party to evaluate the matter at issue and an indication of how the matter is negatively affecting trade or investment of the second Party.
Article 20.15: Transition to a Low Emissions and Resilient Economy
1. The Parties acknowledge that transition to a low emissions economy requires
collective action.
Article 20.4: Multilateral Environmental Agreements
1. The Parties recognise that multilateral environmental agreements to which they are
party play an important role, globally and domestically, in protecting the environment and that their respective implementation of these agreements is critical to achieving the environmental objectives of these agreements. Accordingly, each Party affirms its
commitment to implement the multilateral environmental agreements to which it is a party.
No Party shall fail to effectively enforce its environmental laws through a sustained or
recurring course of action or inaction in a manner affecting trade or investment between the parties, after the date of entry into force of this Agreement for that Party.
If any country disputes that the US in NOT enforcing it’s climate laws then:
The dispute will be settled under Chapter 29 (Dispute Settlement)
According to Article 28.19: A panel consisting of Three members will determine the amount of compensation and damages to be awarded to the “injured” party.”
payments to the UN through the federal bureaucracies ref:
“How much money does the United States currently contribute to the United Nations and its various agencies? Surprisingly, no one knows for sure.
The State Department does report on its spending at the United Nations, but it is only one of several federal agencies that give money to the world body each year.
In its fiscal 2014 State and Foreign Operations budget proposal released in April, the Obama administration asked for $1.57 billion for contributions to international organizations, including $617.6 million for the U.N. operating budget — up from $568.8 million in fiscal 2012.
But other agencies giving to the U.N. include the Departments of Labor, Energy, Agriculture, Defense, and Health and Human Services, CNS News reported.
Fiscal 2007 legislation stipulated that the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) report all federal agencies’ contributions, but the requirement expired in 2011.
Now Republican Sens. Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Mike Lee of Utah, and others, are submitting legislation that would reinstate the requirement.
“It’s disturbing that no one, including our ambassador to the United Nations, knows exactly how much money we send the U.N. every year,” Enzi said in a statement.
“With a national debt exceeding $17 trillion, we need to be able to account for every dime we spend, including what we send to the U.N.”
The last OMB report to Congress on U.N. contributions was issued in June 2011 and covered fiscal 2010. It showed that State was just one of 17 government agencies giving money to U.N. organizations, funds, affiliates and other bodies, and the total expenditure that year was $7.69 billion — more than 10 times the amount requested for State in fiscal 2014.”
Newsmax
just remember that there was no “facts” as to the inauguration crowd size … there were estimates … some better informed than other BUT ALL JUST opinions not FACTS … so Trumps press sec had a different opinion and possibly a less informed one … but not actually alternative facts …
Pesky real facts get in the way of your post: http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/315277-dc-metro-ridership-for-trumps-inauguration-far-lower-than-obamas
Only one variable and your source is suspect.
Jim, if you don’t like my source, check out the data for yourself: http://isotp.metro.net/MetroRidership/Index.aspx
..
You can shoot the messenger if you wish, but there are multiple sources of data the show that the “alternate facts” are……lies.
If I arrange to beat the bejesus out of you and your pals if you go somewhere I don’t like … you might think twice about riding with me, eh?
Washington DC is in the middle of one of the bigger blue spots in the red and blue map of the election votes. That means the people with easy access to the inauguration were mostly liberals. They would get to the inauguration by public transport and as you point out, it went, not surprisingly, unused. The people who would want to get to DC to see Trump’s inauguration live way out in the red boonies. They’d have a long car, bus or train ride just to get to DC while they could stay at home and watch it on TV. So it’s not a conundrum that the crowd wasn’t as large as liberal Obama’s inauguration, it is common sense.
Possibly alternative facts simply refers to the alternatives to all of the lies or lying implications and spin put on stories blasted out by the msm.
S Heins
If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your insurance company you can keep your plan, Benghazi was a protest about an anti-Muslim film, I never used my cell phone for any confidential government information, blah, blah, blah………
Regards,
Jim G1
Alternative facts???
Yep.
Just reverse whatever the MSM says.
+10 works for me!
I just picked this up from the SIERRA CLUB. They are sending out letters. You can just hear the panic. Here is an excerpt: “We’re FURIOUS – and I know you are too. The Sierra Club has a plan to stop Trump and his toxic funders from gaslighting the media and destroying our planet pipeline by strip mine. But we need your monthly support to do it. Will you help right now? ” We need your monthly support added a nice touch but not until they had scared the bejesus out of their poor supporters. Does anyone know what “destroying our planet pipeline by strip mine” means? Wheeeee, I think somebody needs some medicine.
Always comes down to them wanting money. Perhaps it is time to make them fully account for all this money? Where has it gone, who has it gone to, what exactly they got for it/with it?
There’s at least one good thing that’s come out of this presidential election – the exposure of the emperor’s new clothes. Had the Democrats won, the farce might have been maintained a bit longer, with an even more painful awakening. Anyone who can’t recognize liars calling each other liars ad nauseam over a period of months has lost the ability to think. The turn around in “scientific knowledge” under the new whip should be equally eye-opening. More and more people will be forced to accept that they can’t trust government-paid scientists any more than they can trust those paid by corporations selling drugs, tobacco, sugar, and oil, etc..
“accept that they can’t trust government-paid scientists any more than they can trust those paid by corporations selling drugs, tobacco, sugar, and oil, etc..” That is a bullseye on both counts.
The left is not the democrat party of the early 60s. That party is dead, no longer exists. The progressives/socialists/communists have taken over the party. The hard left has always been the party of the lie. Their philosophy is based upon a lie and their strategy and operating plan has always been to tell a lie loud enough and often enough so that it becomes the truth, a fact, if you will. Alternative facts, therefore, become necessary. Create emergencies and then take credit for the solution whether the solution solves the problem or not. None of this is new. The fascists used the same tacticts but were just better at it, particularly when they could use violence to enforce their policies as did the communists. Plus the fascists understood the incentive provided by the profit motive and the desire for people to improve their personal situation. Communist China is probably more fascist today than communist.
CNBC posted this an hour ago “EPA data under scrutiny by Trump administration’s political staff”. Stated in the article is this important bit ” “The Trump administration is mandating that any studies or data from scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency undergo review by political appointees before they can be released to the public.” ”
This is great news, …http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/epa-data-under-scrutiny-by-trump-administrations-political-staff.html
Love this one, UC profs on notice to do their activism on their own dime !
http://junkscience.com/2017/01/ucalifornia-profs-warned-not-to-use-school-resources-for-personal-attacks-on-president-trump/
Notice that all the departments that are under orders are ones without a confirmed Cabinet Secretary.
Sent a link to
http://www.deutschlandfunk.de/alternative-fakten-eine-luege-ist-eine-luege.720.de.html?dram:article_id=377119
http://www.ard.de/home/ard/ARD_Startseite/21920/index.html
and
https://www.google.at/amp/www.spiegel.de/kultur/literatur/alternative-fakten-george-orwells-1984-wieder-bestseller-a-1131616-amp.html?client=ms-android-samsung
Thanks – Hans
I can’t see what the fuss is about to be honest. The webpages will surely change when the new sheriff is installed. Today, tomorrow, next week…what’s the difference?
If the greens wish to look at the archived pages as if they were love letters from a former girlfriend or boyfriend then they are welcome.
How many hard drives at the EPA have been/are being wiped with a Hillary cloth? Hmmmm?
Hard drives, paper shredding, evidence destruction. Yea, it is time for FBI and multiple IGs to go through ALL Federal agencies like a dose of salts.
The Constitution. Wow, I thought Democrats had removed that from US government 25 years ago. They have certainly worked hard enough at it. 😉
As for employees at Federal agencies and Free Speech, they are the same as military members, restricted on where, when and what they may speak of. This is covered in the first day or two in Basic Training in the military. There are restrictions on what government employees may disclose about there work/jobs. With the state of electronic communication in today’s world people can very easily cross a line on these restrictions, and there has long been a need redefine these restrictions so people DO understand them.
The screams and squeals of censorship have already commenced. This is going to be fun, seeing as certain people in USG and academia have been altering and hiding certain data concerning climate and energy production. A thorough vetting and investigation will bring to light all manner of interesting “facts” about a whole lot of people.
As BOSS, President Trump needs to disarm the EPA, DHS,DOE, IRS & other Gov agenciess!
.http://www.dailywire.com/news/6713/pretty-much-every-government-agency-has-guns-hank-berrien
The spectrum of agencies whose employees are armed is cause for real concern. The authors note that IRS agents have access to AR-15 military-style rifles, Health and Human Services “Special Office of Inspector General Agents” have been trained by the Army’s Special Forces contractors, and the Department of Veterans Affairs boats 3,700 armed employees.
According to the op-ed, federal officers with arrest-and-firearm authority numbered 74, 500 in 1996; over 200,000 exist today. As the authors ask, “What exactly is the Obama administration up to?”
On Friday, the authors’ organization, American Transparency, will publish its OpenTheBooks.com oversight report, which will enumerate “federal purchases of guns, ammunition and military-style equipment by seemingly bureaucratic federal agencies.” The authors write, “During a nine-year period through 2014, we found 67 agencies unaffiliated with the Department of Defense spent $1.48 billion on guns and ammo. Of that total, $335.1 million was spent by agencies traditionally viewed as regulatory or administrative, such as the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Mint.”
Here are some more staggering statistics: between 2005 and 2014, the IRS spent $11 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment; the Department of Veterans Affairs spent $11.66 million, including over $200,000 on night-vision equipment, $2.3 million for body armor, over $2 million on guns, and $3.6 million for ammunition; The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service “spent $4.77 million purchasing shotguns, .308 caliber rifles, night-vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones, remote-control helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes and more.”
There’s more: The Environmental Protection Agency spent $3.1 million on guns, ammunition and military-style equipment; The Food and Drug Administration has 183 heavily armed “special agents.”
And more: the Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Education Department, Energy Department, Bureau of Engraving and Printing, National Institute of Standards and Technology have all increased their arsenals.
“During a nine-year period through 2014, we found 67 agencies unaffiliated with the Department of Defense spent $1.48 billion on guns and ammo. Of that total, $335.1 million was spent by agencies traditionally viewed as regulatory or administrative, such as the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Mint.”
The rats are getting their lifeboats ready…
All most as if they are preparing to fight a war against somebody. Wonder who that could be?