(12-11-2016 10:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 10:39 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 10:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-11-2016 09:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Provide me evidence that the current admin either fired or intentionally kept people with specific viewpoints out of the rank and file and you'll have me interested. Until then, it looks like you're trying to place guilt on a group without evidence. I don't need to prove anything since I'm providing evidence of the Trump administration trying to actively find out who attended conferences on the climate. Give me yours.

This isn't about the head of an organization, a position where it makes sense that someone whose views align with the appointer because they have an agenda. This is about rank and file members of an organization who are appearing to be singled out for their understanding of climate science.

I cannot even find a list of people denied jobs because of their Nazi beliefs, or a list of researchers denied funds because of their racist views. That's why I asked for any global warming skeptics employed by the government. It is the same principal used to show bias under Affirmative Action - if the people hired all show one characteristic, it shows bias against people not showing that characteristic. So if Obama's administratration was hiring skeptics proportionally, then it would show no bias. I think they were not, since global warming believers would not want to hire a skeptic. WOuld you? If you, with your beliefs, were an official and and an applicant came in saying there is little or no man made GW, would you hire him despite his beliefs? Be honest, now. It makes as much sense to claim people charged with stamping out bias would hire Klan members for,the sake of balance.

It would obviously depend on the position they are applying for. The Trump survey was sent to all staff members at the DOE, regardless of their position. So let's say I am hiring for a position that is specifically focused on evaluating the impacts of climate change induced sea level rise on coastal communities. You're right that I would not hire someone who doesn't believe that humans are having an effect on climate change because that could severely impact the work they do. Now let's say I am hiring someone who is studying wind energy markets? I wouldn't even ask about climate change and would not care one way or the other.

My issue with the Trump survey is that it threatens to ostracize and punish people, regardless of their work position, for their belief in a mainstream scientific idea. Heck, it actually is worse, as it really compiles a list of people who have just been involved with studying the topic, by attending things like U.N. conferences.

But back to your question about not hiring climate skeptics. Do you think no government agencies employ climate deniers? The government employs all types of people from all walks of life. I highly doubt that they screen everyone on their climate change opinions.

Oh, I am sure there may be some people in the Marshall's service or the FBI who are not true believers. I thought we were talking about people involved in making and enforcing environmental regulations.

Getting back to basics, does packing the Administration with people who reflect the beliefs of the leader constitutive suppression of dissent? If so, it has been a hallmark of Admistrations since forever.

So, if you were working for the EPA, and lost your job to me in 2017, and in 2020, Hillary wins a redo and replaces me with you, who is suppressing dissent?

This has never been explicitly about environmental regs or the EPA. Did you ever read the article I posted?

Yes, if you mean the one about a shake up in Energy policy. Maybe you need to retread it.