
E.P.A. Dismisses Academic Scientists from Major Scientific Review Board - hackuser
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/07/us/politics/epa-dismisses-members-of-major-scientific-review-board.html
======
philipkglass
The Collapse of the Cod Fishery of the Grand Banks

[http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/grandbanks.htm](http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/grandbanks.htm)

"The Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) formulated a
mathematical model of the cod fish population which they used to calculate the
maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The U.S. government had a similar concept
which was called optimal yield. ...

 _In 1989 the DFO advised that the total allowable catch (TAC) of codfish
should be 125,000 tons. The Canadian Minister of Fisheries thought this figure
was too low and arbitrarily increased it to 235,000 tons. In the course of DFO
management the TAC was often set by negotiation between the DFO, the fishing
industry and politicians. The DFO, using their defective model, was setting
setting the TAC too high. The politicians responding to pressure from the
industry increased the TAC from the already too high figures. The net result
was that in the last years of codfishing on the Grand Banks the catch was
about 60 percent of the population instead of 16 percent. The collapse was
catastrophic._

In January of 1992 the DFO was advising that the TAC should be 185,000 tons.
By June of 1992 the DFO was advising that the cod fishing should be stopped."

25 years later, the cod haven't recovered to healthy levels. In 1989 the
industry representatives probably thought that getting politicians to discount
the scientists' advice was a _victory_.

~~~
bpodgursky
I don't mean to in any way challenge the analysis here (obviously the
overfishing was catastrophic), but FWIW the atlantic cod fishery is actually
recovering (at last): [https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/08/06/after-
years-dec...](https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/08/06/after-years-
decline-cod-and-community-rebound-
newfoundland/oNxKF14RpE47yc65OOAy6O/story.html)

There was some concern that Cod had been permanently dislodged as a predator
in the ecosystem, but there has been good news recently.

------
blintz
Republican House member Lamar Smith:

"The E.P.A. routinely stacks this board with friendly scientists who receive
millions of dollars in grants from the federal government. The conflict of
interest here is clear."

Yes, how dare they put scientists on the "Scientific Advisory Board". What we
really need is businesspeople from the coal industry!

Is there no shame? No limit to the blatant disregard for science and public
safety in favor of coal companies?

~~~
a3n
> Is there no shame?

No.

I'm quite sure men in the smoke filled rooms are right now bellowing "This is
OUR TIME! Bwa-ha-ha-ha!"

~~~
bdamm
You're downvoted but I think you're right. Climate change won't wipe out
everyone; it'll be a long process that takes hundreds or thousands of years,
during which time there will be an enormous concentration of power to war-
lords and the creation of a new slave class. This is the outcome that I
believe is being banked on by some of the most powerful people. There are
others who believe in the "rising tide floats all boats". Game on for the
ultra-powerful. The rest of us are mostly bystanders.

~~~
a3n
"rising tide floats all boats" is just attractive psuedo-logic made up by
"supply siders" (which is cover for "hyper rich") or their shills (Congress
and the President) to lull have-nots into taking on a larger share of the tax
burden.

If you're not a cynic, you're still fucked.

------
segmondy
Time to start an alternative to EPA. Perhaps volunteer effort by academics,
non profit. no government dependency.

~~~
daveguy
No government "dependency" means no enforcement.

~~~
dmix
Are fines and coercion realy the only way positive change can happen to deal
with climate change?

Are there no significant projects that could be accomplished through private
funding? No public outreach campaigns? etc

There were hundreds of millions of dollars going to Clinton's campaign and
other anti-Trump PAC. That kind of money put on issues could go a long way.

Not to mention the fact that EPA's budget was $8,139,887,000 in 2016 with 15k
employees. They are still a significant force in the country.
[https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget](https://www.epa.gov/planandbudget/budget)

If we're just talking about marketing alone I'm pretty sure there is still a
significant amount of work that needs to be done just to convince the public
(and not just your everyday simpletons) that this is something serious that
requires a top heavy government approach. Cleary many influential people still
believe otherwise and they have influence in American politics.

If you look at other controversial issues in America that have made progress
over the years, across both parties, such as gay marriage [1] and marijuana
[2] it's clear that opinions can change.

[1] [http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-
gay...](http://www.pewforum.org/2016/05/12/changing-attitudes-on-gay-
marriage/)

[2]
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/29/publi...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/03/29/public-
support-for-marijuana-legalization-surged-in-2016/?utm_term=.b4615d0ba5e4)

~~~
anigbrowl
Yeah, basically. We don't need another damn public outreach campaign, as if
somehow we just haven't been marketing it right all this time and suddenly
everyone who has vested interests in fossil fuels is gonna see the light and
want to protect coral reefs and fluffy animals. Let's get real here, this
fight has been going on about a quarter of a century now and the problem is
not a lack of effort to explain the importance of the issue to the public.

------
notadoc
And who will take their place? Lobbyists?

~~~
passive
Pruitt has stated he would like to see officials from the industries being
regulated taking these positions.

~~~
r00fus
Better than lobbyists - just let the corporations we regulate write the laws!
(edit: clarity)

~~~
danieltillett
What do you mean by 'let'?

------
tbabb
Once upon a time there was a public pool. Everyone used the pool and enjoyed
it, but very soon it became apparent that a few of the pool-goers were
relieving themselves in it. The pool quickly turned yellow and smelly.

So the community got together and formed the pool-pissing committee; the goal
of which was to cut down on the general amount of pool-pissing that was being
done. They would do this by hiring some local experts from the town to measure
the pool water regularly, and tell everyone when somebody had taken a leak in
it, and to the best of their ability, who was responsible.

Right away, some chronic pool-pissers were caught and yanked from the pool.
This was very embarrassing for them, so everyone paid attention when it
happened, and so the new standards of pool play caught on very quickly and
were known by everyone. Soon the water cleared up, and people were able to
enjoy the pool again. It wasn't perfectly clean, but it was much, much better
than before, and it was improving every day. This worked pretty well for a
long time.

A few people didn't like the pool-pissing committee. Some people didn't like
the idea that someone could tell them what they could and couldn't do in a
pool. Others were mad because every once in awhile, the committee would accuse
them of having peed in the pool when they had only peed a little bit, while
Jimmy over there drank a whole 2 liter bottle of mountain dew before he swam
and let it all out through his bladder, but the committee didn't catch him and
that wasn't fair.

But by far, the people who hated the pool-pissing committee the most were the
biggest pool-pissers. The pool-pissing committee was always bothering them,
they complained, embarrassing them in front of their friends, and cruelly
yanking them out of the pool. All they wanted to do was play in the pool, and
didn't they have a right to do that? So what if a little pee leaks out every
now and then. Worse (they argued), if the committee was allowed to yank anyone
who peed out of the pool, then pretty soon the pool would be empty and the
community center would be bankrupt.

Of course the solution was simply to not pee in the pool (as most of the rest
of the community was able to handle this just fine), and to hold it until
afterwards, but _that really cuts into out pool-playing time_ , the pool-
pissers whined.

So the pool-pissers got together a plan: They would band together and take
over the pool-pissing committee-- but first they had to convince the other
pool-goers that this was a good idea.

"The system is rigged!" the pool-pissers squawked. "The pool-pissing committee
_gets paid to test the pool!_ So you see, they all have a stake in the outcome
of the piss tests! This is a conflict of interest! They're on the take!"

A lot of the swimmers began to nod their heads-- this sounded really unfair.
They started to worry if the pool-pissing committee could be trusted.

"We're being paid to do our jobs," said the pool committee. "That's not a
conflict of interest. And we all signed up for this job because we care about
having a clean pool."

But the swimmers didn't hear them, or maybe they didn't care because they were
all very worried that something unfair might be happening. And they were
right, something very unfair was happening, but it wasn't what they were
thinking of.

"We should kick out these crooked _pool experts_ from the pool committee,"
said the pool-pissers. "They don't know the reality of what it's like to be a
swimmer, or how hard it is to hold your pee. Besides, us swimmers have the
biggest stake who stays in the pool. It would be much more fair to put
_swimmers_ on the pool committee".

This sounded reasonable to everyone and soon enough the pool experts were sent
away, and the pool committee was filled with swimmers. Someone noticed that
everyone on the pool committee happened to be swimmers who had been caught
many times pissing in the pool, but it was decided that this was okay because
they knew the most about pool-pissing, so it made sense that they were on a
committee about pool-pissing.

Almost immediately, the pool turned bright yellow and smelled rancid. Nobody
was really sure why. Some swimmers kept saying something about strengthening
the pool committee, but it seemed clear that pool committees didn't work,
because we _have_ a pool committee, and look how yellow the pool is.

Many people got very sick, and the mystery of why the pool turned yellow
remains to this very day.

------
Preemo
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291854](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291854)

------
chmaynard
After Trump and his gang are finished gutting the EPA, there will be a much
wider purge of scientists and intellectuals from all facets of the executive
branch. The only rational response is an organized campaign to convince
American citizens to remove Trump from office as soon as possible.

~~~
devrandomguy
First, you have to convince them that science is a good thing. I have a
friend, who literally believes that scientists are either evil people, who's
primary goal is to gain power over others by outsmarting them, or, willfully
ignorant tools of a predatory political / economic system. To him, big-S
Scientists represent a threat to his way of life.

I reminded him that many of my own family members, people that he trusts, work
in scientific endeavors; a marine biologist, for example, who has dedicated
his life to the wellbeing of the various Pacific salmon species, for the sake
of our food supply and forest health. He just lumped me into the second
category, insisting that salmon are only managed for profit. That the funding
for wild salmon research was being redirected towards improving the yield of
fish farms, to the detriment of both the forests of western Canada, and to the
detriment of the families and communities that live off of the wild salmon
fisheries.

We don't talk much anymore. In order to convince people like this to support
science, instead of attacking it, we must convince them of two things: that
"real, working" scientists have a conscience, and that they have the power to
follow their conscience without losing their status as real, working,
scientists.

~~~
8iterations
I see you are just a random developer guy, so I would recommend you talk to
your friend more. Then, improve your skillset in the sciences, so that you may
outsmart him/her and put whatever resources they possess to better use.

~~~
devrandomguy
In my opinion, this would only reinforce his assumptions, and possibly even
radicalize him to the point of violent rebellion. It would be a form of
oppression, and we all know how that plays out over the long term.

Sun Tzu's philosophy of "taking whole", of carefully manipulating your
opponent into aligning their goals with yours, is the best strategy that I can
come up with. But, because of the communication barrier between us, I am
unsure of how to apply it.

------
tn135
Was it Bill Nye ?

