Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government United States Politics Science

EPA Website Removes Climate Science Site From Public View After Two Decades (washingtonpost.com) 167

Last week there were reports that the EPA climate change website was set to be taken down, though later the EPA denied that. On Friday evening, however, the Environmental Protection Agency announced its website would be "undergoing changes" to better represent the new direction the agency is taking, triggering the removal of several agency websites containing detailed climate data and scientific information (paywalled; alternative source). From a report on The Washington Post: One of the websites that appeared to be gone had been cited to challenge statements made by the EPA's new administrator, Scott Pruitt. Another provided detailed information on the previous administration's Clean Power Plan, including fact sheets about greenhouse gas emissions on the state and local levels and how different demographic groups were affected by such emissions. The changes came less than 24 hours before thousands of protesters were set to march in Washington and around the country in support of political action to push back against the Trump administration's rollbacks of former president Barack Obama's climate policies.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EPA Website Removes Climate Science Site From Public View After Two Decades

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    the Environmental Protection Agency announced its website would be "undergoing changes" to better represent the new direction the agency is taking

    Aaaaaand the site is going down. Which is the new direction the agency is taking.

    • by ls671 ( 1122017 )

      It could slow down the hype but then again...

    • Look here, Trump and his Brilliant A-Team believe in evidence driven science, and as we can see, there is now no evidence and everything is clear, so what's your problem, actually? ;-)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 29, 2017 @03:14AM (#54324165)

    Unless the swings we are seeing in the cycle of El Niño and La Niña are not really occurring Dear Donald is about to be the president who will be in office at the start of the greatest climate caused disaster in recorded history. The past 10 years have seen unprecedented drought on the the West Coast now we are about to see a cyclical change that could very well make a huge portion of the Gulf coast and the Redneck Riviera uninhabitable. There are area of the low lying Gulf coast that could easily be flooded multiple time by hurricane storm surges.

    Watch out we are in for a kick in the ass from mother nature and the financial and human cost could make the dust bowl of dirty thirties look like good times. But then again I am sure somehow Obama and Hillary will be blamed for what is about to occur. Removing science from the equation and allowing politics to dictate what information is available is par for the course for that jackass and bunch of morons left of the Republican "blow you Jack, I'm alright" assholes currently running the show. If Lincoln was a dictator then what these assholes are about is far worse, at least real Republicans do not endorse or engage in scientific censorship and in so doing marginalize sectors of the populace.

    The US is at best 2 pay periods away from complete anarchy and if an area as full of rednecks as the Gulf coast suddenly becomes a disaster caused everyman for himself war zone no one will not be able to stop the ensuing chaos.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Long term planning for the betterment of society, and the environment, is reduced to three month corporate profit targets.
      We're so fucked.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by JWW ( 79176 )

      I'll bet that after hurricane Katrina, you said, "this is going to keep happening every year and we will see more and more hurricanes, it will be horrible".

      I'm absolutely certain you believed that. And you would have been Very wrong.

      So why is this prediction any better...?

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The post you responded to would have been easily refuted with a rational argument, but you felt the need to make up statements the poster never said and responded to those instead.

        Do you just not see how that makes you look as childishly reactionary as the person you were responding to?

    • How has predicting climate catastrophe worked out for you alarmists?

      • In the same way as for you.
        Depending on your age you are probably dead when the worst parts of the change hit mankind.

        • No, they keep predicting the end of the world, and it never comes to pass. I give them about as much credence as the Mayan calendar.

          • So the only reason to do anything is if it causes the world to end? How about if it just fucks up the world beyond repair?
          • Do you have any links for that?
            I never saw anyone predicting 'the end of the world' in such a short time frame.
            We are talking about 50-100 years.

            That we will have a few more meters high sea levels in 100 years, is for sure. The only questionis: will it be already in 50 years, and how many meters will it be ...

          • by Maritz ( 1829006 )

            No, they keep predicting the end of the world, and it never comes to pass. I give them about as much credence as the Mayan calendar.

            Link to someone saying that climate change has already or should have already ended the world. Do it now.

            • by JWW ( 79176 )

              Here ya go....

              https://www.aei.org/publicatio... [aei.org]

              They were fabulously totally and completely wrong.

              This was easy to find, the fact that you didn't know about this shows how you have blinders on about how alarmists and doomsayers work....

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      Be fair, "the greatest climate disaster" started long before Trump took office. It might even be before Lincoln. It's just that nobody noticed it at the time, because it's taken a long time to build. Trump may, however, be president at a point of inflection (a point, because you can't even roughly model it with simple quadratic function). Things are, indeed, likely to get worse quickly for a bit, but Trump didn't cause that, he's just been refusing to ameliorate it.

    • There are area of the low lying Gulf coast that could easily be flooded multiple time by hurricane storm surges.

      [...]

      The US is at best 2 pay periods away from complete anarchy and if an area as full of rednecks as the Gulf coast suddenly becomes a disaster caused everyman for himself war zone no one will not be able to stop the ensuing chaos.

      1942 - Hurricane make landfall at Matagorda, TX
      1945 - Hurricane makes landfall at Port Aransas, TX
      1947 - Hurricane makes landfall at Chandeleur Island, LA
      1949 - Hurricane makes landfall at Freeport, TX

      1956 - Hurricane Flossy makes landfall at Burrwood, LA
      1957 - Hurricane Audrey makes landfall at Port Arthur, TX

      1961 - Hurricane Carla makes landfall at Port O'Connor, TX
      1964 - Hurricane Hilda makes landfall at Morgan City, LA
      1965 - Hurricane Betsy makes landfall at New Orleans, LA
      1966 - Hurricane Alma makes la

  • Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Saturday April 29, 2017 @03:24AM (#54324195)

    The Trumper has flip flopped and lied about everything which has come out of his mouth so this shouldn't surprise anyone. Here's what he said only a week ago [cnn.com]:

    "Rigorous science is critical to my administration's efforts to achieve the twin goals of economic growth and environmental protection."

    "My administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks," Trump said. "As we do so, we should remember that rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate.

    What better way to advance scientific research and allow for honest inquiry and robust debate than to wipe from the record, the very research one claims to support.

    P.S. He had no problem claiming climate change [cbsnews.com] as the reason he needed to build a sea wall [theguardian.com] around his Irish golf course:

    "If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland. In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. ... As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase."

    • Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@@@world3...net> on Saturday April 29, 2017 @06:24AM (#54324481) Homepage Journal

      I guess he means alternative science.

      Every American should be worried about this. Aside from the health damage at a time when healthcare is threatened, and aside from the environmental damage, it's going to make it hard for America to do trade deals and export goods.

      Just because Trump thinks it's a Chinese conspiracy, doesn't mean that, for example, the EU will just ignore it. If the US emits more pollution, low tariff trade deals will be impossible.

      • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        I used EPA data to find out about the CFC114 emissions from uranium enrichment from Paducah. The data was presented as CSV that I downloaded and then put into a spreadsheet to find out just how much was being released.

        It wasn't easy, however when you put in the work the EPA data is pretty useful. So much for progress, I doubt polluters will see this as bad news now that public accountability isn't something they have to worry about.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          That is an obsolete gaseous diffusion plant which is no longer operating, and the contamination is of a sort which may be found at many a large industrial site. As such, it isn't the best example, unless you are looking for something nuclear to complain about. Fortunately, there are better ways to enrich uranium today, and a LFTR won't need any enrichment at all.

          Providing data is a useful service, and should be unrelated to climate science, even for a refrigerant of concern. The summary doesn't make it c

          • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

            That is an obsolete gaseous diffusion plant which is no longer operating, and the contamination is of a sort which may be found at many a large industrial site.

            Yes, I am aware it is no longer in service. I took the data while it was operating.

            As such, it isn't the best example, unless you are looking for something nuclear to complain about.

            No, it's the example that I had used. If I had picked fracking or coal or anything else I would like the data to be available on that as well.

            Fortunately, there are better ways to enrich uranium today,

            What are they?

            and a LFTR won't need any enrichment at all.

            How does that address the issue of the radioactive waste from the current fleet of nuclear reactors. Do thorium reactors burn up DU and plutonium.

            Providing data is a useful service, and should be unrelated to climate science, even for a refrigerant of concern.

            We should have data on all industrial pollutants in the environment.

            The summary doesn't make it clear if this is also gone, and it seems disingenuous of the summary to conflate the two.

            Well, as long as we have the data available.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by markdavis ( 642305 )

      >"The Trumper has flip flopped and lied about everything which has come out of his mouth"

      Actually that is not true. On most things he has done exactly what he said he was going to do. You might not like some of the things he did, but that doesn't mean he is lying or flip-flopping "about everything."

      • by Anonymous Coward

        On most things he has done exactly what he said he was going to do. You might not like some of the things he did, but that doesn't mean he is lying or flip-flopping "about everything."

        Actually, that is false, he has done little to nothing of what he said he was going to do, none of it in any way close to exactly how he said he was going to do it, and everything he has done, he has compulsively lied about due to his tendency for braggadocio and irresponsibility.

        Sorry, but while you might like the things he said, that just means you refuse to admit that he has flip-flopped and lied about everything which has come out of his mouth. Which describes pretty much all of Trump's supporters I'v

      • Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)

        by Patent Lover ( 779809 ) on Saturday April 29, 2017 @08:23AM (#54324751)
        Said he was going to have the US withdraw from NAFTA: didn't do it. Said he was going have the US withdraw from NATO: didn't do it. Said he was going to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it: now he wants US taxpayers to pay for it. Said he was going to repeal and replace the ACA with something better that covers everybody: didn't do it. Said he's going to bring back coal jobs: simply can't happen, though he did sign an executive order allowing coal to pollute streams, hurray. Said he wasn't going to have time to play golf like Obama: already played 16 days worth. Said he was going to destroy ISIS in the first 30 days: didn't do it. Said he wasn't going to settle the Trump University lawsuit: settled. Said he was going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement: didn't do it. I'm sure there are more.
    • by sir-gold ( 949031 ) on Saturday April 29, 2017 @11:15AM (#54325249)

      Nothing he says is inconsistent, you just have to read between the lines.

      For example, when he says "a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks", what he really means is "the 'current' understanding disagrees with my personal beliefs and desires, therefore, the problem must be the 'current' understanding, so we need a 'better' one"

      • Well, actually, his EPA head says that climate change is an engineering problem that can be met with engineering solutions. I'm not sure why Trump would put a guy like that into office if he thought it was all hogwash and wasn't open to real ideas and facts about it.

        What is hogwash is the idea that only by retarding the economy and making things more expensive for first world countries can climate change be tackled. There is more than one way to travel across town, there is more than one way to make a gallo

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Would a kind American please make the freedom if information request for this data, so it can be mirrored and hosted for the global scietific community? If we aren't going to have more data, let's at least preserve what is available now.

  • Mirrors (Score:5, Informative)

    by hackertourist ( 2202674 ) <hackertourist@x[ ]et.nl ['msn' in gap]> on Saturday April 29, 2017 @04:38AM (#54324315)

    we're lucky this got announced early, so there have been efforts to save this data:

    Github repo [reddit.com]

    list of mirrors [daknob.net]

    another one [rehmann.co]

    more [saveourepa.com]

    even more [ucr.edu]

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 )

      pfft, unnecessary as info was already archived on other sites such as under data.gov domain.

      bunch of hysterics over non-news.

  • by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Saturday April 29, 2017 @10:00AM (#54325045)

    After all, who needs data when you have ideology?

  • They are not arguing about whether climate change is real or not or what we should do about it. They're trying to bury the facts so we can't make an educated decision about it. These people are behaving like enemies as they execute a major money and power grab. They are not advocates and the voters are too blinded by rage to figure this all out.
  • The level of downvoting in this thread is outragous!
  • Hey, maybe we can have a day that is dedicated to open dialogue in science and not try to divert it to one side or the other? Wouldn't that be cool if that could actually happen? OH LOOK! A LBGT person not getting 100% of everyone's attention! Lets go worry about that now!
  • Sometimes you're not paranoid, they really are fscking with you(r data). Slashdot, 12 Dec 2016, Scientists Scramble To Protect Research On Climate Change [slashdot.org]
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by iggymanz ( 596061 )

      because this data isn't already redundantly archived under data.gov domain?

      this "news" is hysterical pants-shitting over nothing being lost

      • You are seriously arguing that the fact that the EPA is now removing important data relevant to the protection of the environment is not news? Perhaps you're missing what the letters EPA stand for?
        • they merely are removing a redundant copy, what's the big deal?

  • Just make a new Website and explain why you had to do it. (For truthful information.). It won't stop the denier’s from being idiotic. But you will have the facts handy.

Any given program, when running, is obsolete.

Working...