Is the Age of Scientific Censure Imminent?

[gleem]

Pleaes read the following. It its the material for a whole chapter in furture hisotry books or even whole books. It one ups Gov. Rick Scott of Florida who band the use of the terms "climate change" and "global warming" from all official communications back in 2011.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...d-in-climate-meetings/?utm_term=.bd9ca2cca10cChoosing a senior administration who espouses your views is one thing, however this points to something more ominous.

 

[phinds]

Choosing a senior administration who espouses your views is one thing, however this points to something more ominous.

There will always be idiots among politicians but the facts won't change and however screwed up things get in the short term, in the long term facts will out.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

however screwed up things get in the short term, in the long term facts will out.

I "liked" your post for your optimism.

 

[phinds]

I "liked" your post for your optimism.

HA ! What I always say when I feel that way, and what I assume you really are saying to me, is "I admire your optimism but not your grasp of reality"

 

[S.G. Janssens]

HA ! What I always say when I feel that way, and what I assume you really are saying to me, is "I admire your optimism but not your grasp of reality"

Well, I admired your grasp of reality when you wrote

There will always be idiots among politicians but the facts won't change

There are two very true statements in that sentence.

When I said I like your optimism, I meant that I am not sure whether the deciding powers will (in the long run, in majority) see the facts for what they are: facts (and not just "opinions").

 

[gleem]

If we somehow found the solution for fusion driven energy that threated our oil economy would that also be suppressed? What about high efficiency solar cell research?

 

[john101]

The significantly monied classes don't care at all about the direct consequences of climate change. They don't have to.

An economic Gladio, or strategy of tension.
- 'induce stress to the current economy in order to create new economic spheres and thus ensure economic growth.' is all that matters. A crisis is merely an opportunity. In the absence of opportunity, create or nurture crisis.

In the short term there will be a trickle down effect. People and groups across the globe who in any way advocate sustainability will be marginalised. Later this thesis will create its antithesis and so on.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Did anyone actually read the questions? Of course not. Why let facts get in the way of righteous indignation.

The specific question is #13: "Can you provide a list of all Department of Energy employees or contractors who have attended any Interacgency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon meetings? Can you provide a list of when those meetings were and any materials distributed at those meetings, emails associated with these meetings, or materials created by Department employees or contractors in anticipation of or as a result of those meetings.

So, unlike what the article suggests, the transition team is not asking "who is doing climate change research", but rather "who prepared one particular report, and what is the basis of what's in it?" I think this is a perfectly reasonable question from the transition team (or the administration for that matter). It is certainly true that that information is not present on the report, and that's very odd. I've never shied away from having my name associated with reports I have produced, and most federal reports have that information.

There is also question 14, which essentially asks whether DOE ran any of the models used by IPPC themselves, or if they relied on others. Does anyone think that's an unreasonable question?

 

[zoobyshoe]

...however this points to something more ominous.

I agree. For an administration to compile a list of people who strongly disagrees with them on any issue definitely implies it's not a list of people to whom they intend to award medals.

Did anyone actually read the questions? Of course not. Why let facts get in the way of righteous indignation.

If you read the entirety of the questionnaire it's obviously digging deep into all the nooks and crannies. What that kind of detailed search forebodes depends on who is doing it. Coming from an administration openly hostile to your views makes it clear they are fishing for ways to deconstruct those of your findings they disagree with. No individual question need be deemed unreasonable. It's the source of the questions and the drift of the cumulative total that needs to be considered.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If you read the entirety of the questionnaire it's obviously digging deep into all the nooks and crannies.

So what? Is there any question in there that is unreasonable for the transition team - or for that matter, any member of the public to know?

The rest of your argument is essentially

1. We know Donald Trump is a bad person
2. He's asking tough questions
3. He may misuse the answer
4. This provides more evidence that he is a bad person

Even if this is true, it's not a very good argument.

In any event, I wanted to clear up a misrepresentation in the article: it's one report. It's a report that is unusually influential, and unusual in that the individuals who created it and the methodology they used are not public.

 

[zoobyshoe]

So what? Is there any question in there that is unreasonable for the transition team - or for that matter, any member of the public to know?

Repeating: No individual question need be deemed unreasonable. It's the source of the questions and the drift of the cumulative total that needs to be considered.

The rest of your argument is essentially

1. We know Donald Trump is a bad person
2. He's asking tough questions
3. He may misuse the answer
4. This provides more evidence that he is a bad person

Even if this is true, it's not a very good argument.

No, this isn't my argument.

 

[mheslep]

Questions 47-50 are excellent questions for the promotion of nuclear power in the US: how to protect existing nuclear plants, prevent premature closure, status of Small Modular, commercialize advanced nuclear. Those questions were formulated by somebody on the transition team who well understands both the current status of US nuclear power and its potential.

I've seen several forms of questioning from new, incoming senior management in the private sector, though rarely were the questions so well formulated and on point. It's tragic if, as the NYT reports, that this kind of thing is unprecedented in government transition, or that some staff considers them a 'witch hunt'.

 

[Astronuc]

Apparently, there are at least two lists of questions, one being a draft and the other being more or less final. A key difference is question 13.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...tionnaire-Energy-Dept.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
13. as Vanadium cited above and

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...y-dept-which-employees-work-on-climate-change
NPR cites: http://www.eenews.net/assets/2016/12/09/document_gw_06.pdf
13. There are studies that show that your high resource and technology case for oil and gas represents the shale gas and oil renaissance far better than your reference case. Why has EIA not put those assumptions in your reference case?

Many questions are the same, but the order may be different.

Reading the questions, if I was in a new administration, those would be questions I'd be asking as well. I already know the answers to a number of the questions.

Some questions would require substantial effort, if the authors want to know details like publications of staff. But the labs track publications, but not necessarily by staff member. Each staff member would have a CV that is likely to contain a list of publications.

With regard to nuclear energy, the NPR cited questionnaire has:
33. Are there any statutory restrictions to restarting the Yucca Mountain project?

36. Does DOE have a plan to resume the Yucca Mountain license proceedings?

52. How can the DOE support existing reactors to continue operating as part of the nation's infrastructure?
53. What can DOE do to help prevent premature closure of plants?
54. How do you recommend continuing to supporting the licensing of Small Modular Reactors?
55. How best can DOE optimize its Advanced Reactor R&D activities to maximize their value proposition and work with investors to development and commercialize advanced reactors?

This contrasts with numbering of Questions 47-50 cited in the NYTimes (others ?) questionnaire cited by mheslep above.

Nevertheless, energy (and climate/environmental) policy is highly politicized with conflicting political and economic interests. When administrations change, we often see policies change dramatically, e.g., Yucca mountain used/spent fuel repository.

 

[mheslep]

...

With regard to nuclear energy, the NPR cited questionnaire has:
33. Are there any statutory restrictions to restarting the Yucca Mountain project?

36. Does DOE have a plan to resume the Yucca Mountain license proceedings?

52. How can the DOE support existing reactors to continue operating as part of the nation's infrastructure?
53. What can DOE do to help prevent premature closure of plants?
54. How do you recommend continuing to supporting the licensing of Small Modular Reactors?
55. How best can DOE optimize its Advanced Reactor R&D activities to maximize their value proposition and work with investors to development and commercialize advanced reactors?

This contrasts with numbering of Questions 47-50 cited in the NYTimes (others ?) questionnaire cited by mheslep above...

Yes, I meant the questions 52 - 55 in your numbering were good questions for the promotion of nuclear power. Either the order was different in my source or I was mistaken.

 

[Astronuc]

Yes, I meant the questions 52 - 55 in your numbering were good questions for the promotion of nuclear power. Either the order was different in my source or I was mistaken.

As I mentioned above, I found two sets of 74 questions. One probably a draft, and one final. I don't know at this point which one is the 'official' set; both are cited by different media organizations. I cite both sets of questions.

The questions on nuclear energy were the same, just numbered differently.

Perhaps the most significant change was question 13.

All the questions seem appropriate for a new administration, although there is concern about certain questions based on rhetoric from Trump and others. Climate change is perhaps the most sensitive issue concerning certain programs in DOE and EPA.

 

[mheslep]

those would be questions I'd be asking as well

As would many other STEM professionals I expect, given a simliar task. The news in this case is the media, again, in that it adopts an absurd speculative narrative instead, e.g. from the WaPo, "intrusive... singling people out ... signal of even more intense politicization..." Questions about government work and projects from new management are 'intrusive'? How is an actual Mccarthyism to be detected if it the press is Mccarthy?

 

[gleem]

What advice if any would you give to graduating seniors in the atmospheric or geophysical sciences at this point since names are being taken for some unknown purpose by an administration hostile to research in these areas. What about current graduate students?

 

[Astronuc]

What advice if any would you give to graduating seniors in the atmospheric or geophysical sciences at this point since names are being taken for some unknown purpose by an administration hostile to research in these areas. What about current graduate students?

I'd say stick with it. Climate science (including meteorology) is an important area of research, particularly with respect to it's impact on infrastructure (and insurance coverage) and agriculture, and that leads to significant security and economic consequences.

For example, parts of the northwest received rain late in the latest growing season for wheat. That meant that the wheat from certain areas has too much of an enzyme that reduces the starch content of the kernel. It's hard to detect at the initial collection points, so undesirable wheat can get mixed with desirable wheat. It's still good wheat, but not desirable in some markets, which adversely affects exports, which the US needs to improve the trade balance.

http://nwpr.org/post/northwest-wheats-low-falling-number-means-low-prices-farmers

Many Washington and Idaho wheat farmers are struggling this year because of a weird crop problem. Researchers at the USDA’s Western Wheat Quality Lab at Washington State University in Pullman are looking into it.

‘Highly unacceptable’ sponge cake

This big problem is called “low falling number.” Basically it means there is an enzyme formed in a kernel of wheat that’s eaten away at the starch. Experts say low falling number hit Washington and northern Idaho the worst, although Oregon did see some too.

Low falling number happens for two reasons. One, there was rain late near harvest time and the wheat kernel thought it was time to sprout. Or, two there were really wide swings in temperature during key times of growth in the plant. Both problems happened this year.

Cold snaps, particularly freezing weather early in spring can have a significant and adverse impact on fruit nut trees. Orchards in NY and PA can see significant crop losses due to freezes during spring when/after fruit and nut trees bud.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/lateseason-freeze-to-threaten/47460447
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weath...losses-of-fruit-crop-northeastern-us/56491741

 

[russ_watters]

What advice if any would you give to graduating seniors in the atmospheric or geophysical sciences at this point since names are being taken for some unknown purpose by an administration hostile to research in these areas. What about current graduate students?

What do those questions even mean? What does it have to do with the topic being discussed? I think my answer would be: unconnected issues don't need to be discussed as if they are related.

We'll see where this goes, but given that the Obama administration's energy department was openly hostile toward our largest source of clean energy, to the extreme of violating federal law in order to undermine it, I'd say that the energy department is due for a pretty radical housecleaning.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/0...-caused-by-politica-36298.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-agency-violating-law-on-yucca-nuke-site.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...790929232e1_story.html?utm_term=.521ec1bd4def

There is an irony in all of this: Obama succeeded by failing when it came to carbon reduction. Despite strongly opposing fracking and in particular pipelines associated with it, fracking caused most of the carbon emissions reductions under his watch. Trump could similarly succeed at reducing the USA's carbon output - without even trying - if he kick-starts the nuclear power industry.

 

[zoobyshoe]

What do those questions even mean?

What advice would you give someone entering a scientific field toward which the government is hostile? It's well known and not in dispute that Trump and tentative members of his cabinet are so called "climate deniers." That being the case, the request for many specific names and professional histories of people in the DoE presumed to support the idea human activity is affecting the climate, is cause for anxiety. So, what advice would you give someone about to enter that field, under the circumstances?

What does it have to do with the topic being discussed?

The topic of this thread is actually not nuclear power. Check out the thread title and opening post.

 

[russ_watters]

What advice would you give someone entering a scientific field toward which the government is hostile?

Oh, well that's a legitimate question. The question about the government taking names was a different one and a really weird one. Your question I'd answer this way:

Every administration has its own preferences and biases, as are the public and the winds of funding grants fickle. They are worth considering, but don't let them knee-jerk change your course. In the broad sense, you should be thinking long term while recognizing that there are no industries that are guaranteed to be able to employ you for a 40 year career. and always remember there is no issue more important to a politician than his or her own reelection. Any politician would sell your industry out if he or she thought it would gain them a few votes.

If the person was referring to a specific industry, I'd give a specific response:
-Solar power: might be down over the next few years but its long term prospects are good.
-Nuclear power was down over decades, but is undergoing a resurgence despite political pressure against it and its long-term prospects are good.
-Coal is likely to undergo a resurgence in the next administration, but its long term prospects are not good. (note: I don't think I've seen people ask the question in reference to coal)

The topic of this thread is actually not nuclear power. Check out the thread title and opening post.

What? That people do not include discussion of nuclear power in discussions of climate change is a huuuuuge problem.

...and looking at the title, I see a broad and non-specific issue and from the link in the OP, questions about nuclear power. What do you see that requires exclusion of nuclear power from the discussion? And we have indeed had people over the past 8 years ask something like the question you asked in reference to nuclear power/engineering.

 

[mheslep]

Coal is likely to undergo a resurgence in the next administration

That seems very unlikely, despite positive public statements from the incoming administration. Coal is being squashed in the US market by gas. The only way to help coal is by government intervention in gas production.

 

[gleem]

It seemed to me that Obama's opposition to nuclear power was primarily personal but it also reflects the view of most of the public ( the not in my back yard attitude). The incoming administration's top down denial of anthropogenic global warming is more visceral and necessary to promote their economic goals. Dismantling of research in global warming would be proof to the faithful of the campaign promise to revitalize the economy. Do you think the incoming administration will have a laissez faire policy for such research? Isn't "taking names" the first part of a well known aphorism?

 

[gleem]

The incoming administration may well reemphasize nuclear power because it means jobs but the public still has a problem with it. Solar power is a mainstay of global warming advocates and it would be surprising to see its emphasis for the foreseeable future. The only hope for coal and it is minimal is in making coke for steel production if that industry can be revitalized quickly.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Oh, well that's a legitimate question... ...Your question I'd answer this way:

Every administration has its own preferences and biases, as are the public and the winds of funding grants fickle. They are worth considering, but don't let them knee-jerk change your course. In the broad sense, you should be thinking long term while recognizing that there are no industries that are guaranteed to be able to employ you for a 40 year career. and always remember there is no issue more important to a politician than his or her own reelection. Any politician would sell your industry out if he or she thought it would gain them a few votes.

If the person was referring to a specific industry, I'd give a specific response:
-Solar power: might be down over the next few years but its long term prospects are good.
-Nuclear power was down over decades, but is undergoing a resurgence despite political pressure against it and its long-term prospects are good.
-Coal is likely to undergo a resurgence in the next administration, but its long term prospects are not good. (note: I don't think I've seen people ask the question in reference to coal)

Good answer. Realistic and reasonable.

The question about the government taking names was a different one and a really weird one.

If you don't understand the issue of taking names, you still don't understand what the thread is about. Here's an article from yesterday's Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...limate-change-is-real/?utm_term=.2a0f83f0f7f2
From that article:

Last week Trump’s transition team for the Energy Department asked officials there to identify which employees have participated in international climate negotiations or worked on domestic efforts to cut greenhouse gases, such as calculating the social cost of carbon. Several scientists, federal union officials and public watchdog groups have expressed concern that these individuals could be targeted for retaliation once Trump takes office.

That last sentence states the issue and subject of this thread: are scientists under Trump going to be subjected to some kind of retaliation if their scientific conclusions on any issue are not what Trump and his cabinet want to hear?

The questionnaire has to be looked at in context, the context being everything Trump, to understand why it has menacing overtones. Recall, for example, how Trump tried to deal with members of the media a couple weeks ago, calling them all to Trump tower, ostensibly for a neutral briefing on logistics of how he was going to interface with them, but instead ambushed them with an angry lecture in which he tried to rip them all a new one. Is that what's in store for the people whose names he is asking for? Are they going to be assembled and told, "I know who you are, where you work, where you publish, and where you get your funding, so, repeat after me: 'NOBODY REALLY KNOWS IF CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL!' "?

That's what this thread is about. It's not about the DoE or any particular source of energy, it's about whether or not we can expect the Trump administration to try and bully scientists into saying what he wants to hear.

 

[russ_watters]

That seems very unlikely, despite positive public statements from the incoming administration. Coal is being squashed in the US market by gas. The only way to help coal is by government intervention in gas production.

Perhaps "resurgence" is the wrong word. I'll try again: Some of Obama's hostile policies are likely to be cancelled, which will at least slow coal's decline. In particular, emissions standards are causing power plant owners to close rather than upgrading (or finding another alternative to address it) coal plants.

 

[mheslep]

Perhaps "resurgence" is the wrong word. I'll try again: Some of Obama's hostile policies are likely to be cancelled, which will at least slow coal's decline. In particular, emissions standards are causing power plant owners to close rather than upgrading (or finding another alternative to address it) coal plants.

Perhaps slow coal closure a little.

Once the switch to gas began a limitation was the pipelines, so construction began. Many have been completed or soon will be, and so those areas on hold can proceed. Even if the EPA Clean Power Plan folds ( a judge had all ready held it up), and I think it will, the gunk coming out of coal plants (ash, particulates, SOx, NOx) still remains restricted by the traditional pollution laws which are not going away. A utility avoids most of those emissions problems if it switches to gas. There are still other advantages: gas turbine plants don't need valuable water front property, and without coal service by rail a gas plant can be located close to, or in, an urban load area.

 

[mheslep]

...
The questionnaire has to be looked at in context, the context being everything Trump, ...

This then reads to me as a desire for narrative, and specifically without context. Context requires the relevant history, which means more than 'everything Trump'. This would include the like of the Attorney General ordering surveillance on reporters, and the record number of prosecutions for leaks.

Regarding that press-Trump meeting: if people in the new administration are maintaining a clandestine, active cooperation with an opposing political campaign while on the job, as were many of the media companies in that meeting in NYC, then a tongue lashing is the least they should receive.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Department of Energy refuses to reveal names of climate scientists to Trump:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...o-reveal-names-of-climate-scientists-to-Trump

I copied out the questions from the questionnaire that seem to be the troublesome ones:

1 Can you provide a list of all boards, councils, commissions, working groups, and FACAs currently active at the Department? For each, can you please provide members, meeting schedules, and authority (statutory or otherwise) under which they were created?
-------
8 Who "owns" the Mission Innovations and Clean Energy Ministerial efforts within the Department?
-----------
17 Can you provide a list of all Schedule C appointees, all non-career SES employees, and all Presidential appointees requiring Senate confirmation? Can you include their current position and how long they have served in the Department?
----------
19 Can you provide a list of Department employees or contractors who attended any of the Conference of the Parties (under the UNFCCC) in the last five years?
--------
Questions Pertaining to the EIA Lab Staff:

[51 EIA is an independent agency in DOE. How has EIA ensured its independence in your data and analysis over the past 8 years? In what instances do you think EIA's independence was most challenged?]

69 Can you provide a list of the twenty top salaried employees of the lab, with total remuneration and the portion funded by the DOE?

70 Can you provide a list of all peer-reviewed publications by lab staff for the past three years?

71 Can you provide a list of current professional society memberships of lab staff?

72 Can you provide a list of publications by lab staff for the past three years?

73 Can you provide a list of all websites maintained by or contributed to by laboratory staff during work hours for the past three years?

74 Can you provide a list of all other positions currently held by lab staff, paid and unpaid, including faculties, boards, and consultancies?

 

[mheslep]

The DOE response, as reported by the Post, did not reference climate or any other field. They declined to provide any names on any subject, that are not already public information.

The Department of Energy received significant feedback from our workforce throughout the department, including the National Labs, following the release of the transition team’s questions. Some of the questions asked left many in our workforce unsettled,” said Eben Burnham-Snyder, a department spokesman. “Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of DOE (Department of Energy) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people. We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department.

“We will be forthcoming with all publically-available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team.”