Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "EPA Purges Top Science Advisers For Industry Insiders" video.

Not true. Capitalism uses science to progress us. Socialist uses science to fear monger.
2
Except they are hiring scientists, they just can't receive funds from the EPA.
1
How is this stupid? It is a conflict of interest. That is all this is preventing.
1
Fun fact, Exxon Mobil help fund for San Gorgonio Pass wind farm.
1
Shark Wave, everyone contributes to climate change purely based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
1
Corbett Report is a reliable source on the issue of science?
1
Royal We, what is your point? Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years and it is a driving force in evolution. So again, what is your point?
1
Oil is beneficial. People hear feel oil is used only to drive our cars but fail to realize the many other purposes it has.
1
Prevent what? If you want laws than do it at the state and local level.
1
Trump is not tearing down the EPA. He is looking to hire people to keep it in check to see if grants are producing. Placing people in that position who have received grants have a conflict of interest. It is how certain research groups continue to get funded while producing very little. It becomes established. I thought you leftists wanted to do away with establishment politics?
1
Keith Durant, while you are correct that research in the private sector is to produce a profit, there is still waste. Especially in drug development. What happens is in academics new projects and methods are designed to carve out knowledge in the universe. The private sector takes what is important and makes it useful. For example, my research if funded by the NIH. We won't develop a new drug but we will provide new information that is not known. The private sector will take what is useful and expand it. There is a reason why grad students are paid $2000 a month, if they are lucky, and scientists in the private sector are paid more.
1
Also, what is being done with the EPA is removing a conflict of interest. If you receive a grant you can't be on the board. Here is what it could prevent. If you receive a grant and graduate a student sometime later you can approve a grant for that same student who is now a PI simply because they do work you like and you like them. Doesn't matter if they are productive. This is also to see if people are producing with research. A lab was funded with millions of dollars a year at my university and produced nothing. You don't want that. You at least have to publish papers.
1
It is sad, the second you question that government has a problem along with a program like the EPA leftists go crazy thinking you want to kill the environment.
1
Leftists, this is what you wanted. If you want an EPA then set it up at the state and local level. All the federal government can do is enforce commerce between states.Instead you wanted the federal government to have this power and this is what you are getting. Good job.
1
Drew Myself, the federal government is there to serve the states, not the people. That is why we have the electoral college and prior to 1913 the only federal tax was on the states. Also, the military cannot enforce state law without consent of the governor. Even at that if it is there to "serve the people" one can argue that the EPA in its current form does not do that and what Pruitt is doing is pushing so it does serve the people. As a scientist myself I do not see this as "hunting down of the scientific community". All it is saying is that anyone who receives EPA funded grants can't serve on the financial board. I see that are preventing conflict of interest which is good. Also, the idea of getting private businesses more involved can see that grant money is actually being spent well and not wasted. I see no problem with that. It has come to the point that anything you see Trump doing is bad. How about you break down for me why you think this is bad? As for federal government overruling state and local regulations, if a state or local government were to have stricter regulations than the federal government can't do anything about it. Even at that Trump has pushed for more state rights. You really need to understand Trump's position and what he is actually doing as opposed to thinking of "Trump bad, democrats good" all the time.
1
The fact that Pruitt sued the EPA is not a knock against him. So you don't think we should have the power to sue the government? Do you feel that we should just allow the government to do what it wants no questions asked? Also, Pruitt does not deny climate change. Until you can present your opponent fairly you are not worth my time.
1
Red Hood, how many candidates do you have? One? Good luck. Also, this is not a bad thing. If you receive EPA grants you shouldn't be on the board as there is a conflict of interest. This is normal.
1
Internet, GPS and the computer were made the way they were by private companies. Youtube, Google, Amazon, etc. were all private. My smartphone with GPS is by a private company. If you want to go off of just government funding than get rid of your smart phone.
1
Is this necessarily bad? If they are receiving EPA funding they shouldn't be on the board. There is a conflict of interest.
1
Except they are still hiring scientists.
1
This isn't bad. It is a conflict of interest. If you receive an EPA grant you simply can't be on the board. This is to prevent someone from receiving a grant from getting in that position and giving grants to their buddies.
1
Nope. You wanted the federal government to have this power and this is what you are getting. You want EPA laws do it at the state level.
1
blackearl7891, the 1st amendment is not being violated. They can still do research, they just can't hold a certain position. Nothing is being censored here.
1
fishlove69, this policy Trump is doing has nothing to do with water pollution. As for spying I agree, that should not happen. I don't see Trump pushing for that.
1
Ultimum Draco, I want a limited federal government.
1
blackearl7891, Trump is not preventing research from being published. There are plenty of journals to publish in.
1
Wow, all I have seen are attacks from leftists on this page. Seems like they can't counter my point. It is more of "Trump bad" talk.
1
It is sad that the second someone questions the government and a certain program certain people feel that you want to destroy the earth. I question the EPA and the powers of the federal government. I want a clean earth as well, but apparently we can't have that discussion anymore.
1
ChristianIce, this is about financing grants, no pollution.
1
ezerasurfr, I know they are not saying "big government will solve this", but when I suggest that the EPA is not the best system we can have I get ridiculed. That is the problem. This is a constant from the left now that when people suggest there is a problem with government than we apparently want people to die and we want to pollute the water. That is not true. I simply feel the EPA is not that best route for our country. I am all for having a discussion but we can't get past the first step.
1
"You may be for a cleaner environment, but that's irrelevant because the policy decisions from the right wing lead to a polluted environment. " Like what? "That's not my opinion. That's history and facts." Such as? " They're taking away power from the federal government to protect the environment and giving it to fossil fuel corporations like it was before the EPA was created" So the federal government is the only source to solve this problem? Not the state and local government?
1
"He rolled back the regulations from the Obama era for mining companies" Regulations that were put in place right before Obama left. And what did we do years before those regulations? Obama put them in place and they were not in place for long. Now they are gone. What is going to happen? Nothing as we have not had them for decades. "He also wants out of the Paris Accords" It was a bad deal.
1