Energy chief suggests Trump administration is altering previously published climate reports; staff for next iteration all fired already

Always in His Presence said:

Yes, he is reported as saying that. The president was reported saying that he was going to replace him also.

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

They have the documents according to their own reporting. They have not released the original documents, but gave us some mission of the points they think are important.

How many times do people have to be embarrassed by be believing this kind of stuff and it never happens

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

For a novel virus? I think not.

Whatever that was all about, it is clear from even your own post that information about the spread of the virus was evolving unlike climate change where we have known the basic pattern for at least 3 decades.

Click to expand...

Tuur said:

New virus or not, human behavior remains the same, and much of the spread of disease centers on that. Right at the start of the pandemic, someone sent me a link to a story about a a health official combating the Spanish Flu, simply because the official and myself might be related. We weren't, but the article proved interesting.

Now, to set the background here, in 1918 it wasn't known that influenza is cause by viruses. It was thought to be caused by a bacteria. Why? Because cultures from the ones who died turned up a particular bacteria that they named hamophilius influenza. They later figured out that this pneumonia was a secondary infection, but in 1918 they didn't know that. They did know about isolation of the infected. They did know large gatherings could spread it. It later unfolded that a good bit of what was done in 1918 would be done during the pandemic because human behaviors that help spread highly contagious disease is pretty much constant regardless of the infectious agent. Those measures showed up again during the last pandemic because they centered on human behavior that could spread highly contagious infections.

Now, if you know an infectious agent can be spread by droplets from the nose and mouth, you know a mask can help contain the droplets. The purpose is to contain the infection to the infected person. Same reason surgeons have masked for over a century now. If you know that infectious can be spread by contact, you wash your hands. That's been known for over a century, too. It was already known that the eyes, nose, and mouth were avenues for infection, so touching eyes, nose, and mouth with contaminated hands is good way to catch various ailments. Put the two together and you know you need to wash your hands before donning a mask, you need to make sure it's properly fitted, and once in place you leave it alone.

What the CDC knew was that the average person likely won't wash hands before masking; won't know how to wear it properly; will fiddle with it; set it down on objects, and other stuff humans do. You don't need to know a virus' genetic code to know that putting on a mask with unwashed hands is going to bring those dirty fingers up around the eyes, nose, and mouth. That was the CDC initial concern: People would mask, which could contain droplets from nose and mouth if used properly, but were more likely to use them improperly and thus increase their risk of infection from people being people. All that was necessary to know was that it could spread through the droplets from your nose and mouth. Knowing the particulars about a specific virus isn't necessary for that.

Remember the outcry when the CDC first recommended against the general public masking? Horrors! It was on the "news." It was in conversations. There were all sorts of negative comments. And lo and behold the CDC reversed itself. Before much more was known about the virus, too, I might add.

The rest is an unfortunate history of people wearing masks improperly, fiddling with them, laying them down on surfaces, and all the other bad behavior that the CDC initially feared when they first panned the general public masking. That first assessment was based on people being people, and that holds whether a highly contagious disease is new or not.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

None of this had a single thing to do with DOE climate "assessments". I have no interest in rehashing any "mask controversies".

Click to expand...

Tuur said:

Government assessments tend to change with the political winds.

Click to expand...

Tuur said:

As I said above, when the Democrats regain the White House, the assessments will very likely change again. That's the way of things.

Click to expand...

Tuur said:

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the fleeting aspect of government assessments; an example that should be fresh in everyone's mind. Government assessments tend to change with the political winds. An inconvenient truth, perhaps, but truth all the same.

As I said above, when the Democrats regain the White House, the assessments will very likely change again. That's the way of things.

Click to expand...

RocksInMyHead said:

This is a relatively recent development that coincides with one of our politics parties deciding that truth in general is inconvenient and that the concept of "alternative facts" is actually a real thing rather than satire.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

That's not how scientific assessments work. If one has changed due to politics, then it is completely on the politicians who made it change.

Click to expand...