Websites hosting major US climate reports taken down

If this administration doesn't want to do anything to solve climate change, that's their choice. It's a terrible choice, but it's in their power to do so.

However, there's a huge difference between dismissing the severity of the evidence vs. going out of your way to hide evidence. The first is born of arrogance. The later is naked cowardice - they know exactly how wrong they are. If they wanted to project strength, they could simply leave the reports up and say "we don't care". Instead they scurry around behind the curtains trying to cover their tracks. Fucking pathetic.

They're still angry at Fauci for not going along with the world's dumbest coverup attempt in Feb 2020.

The non-cowardly thing to do would be to engage scientifically rather than memory hole the consensus.

Or create the impossible requirement that a study have no bias.

I'm not sure that's a fair argument. When social media takes down what it perceives as misinformation, the right uses the sunshine argument. "Leave it up and let the best argument win."

In any event, just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean it is biased.

I was just pointing out the incorrect logic of the comment:

If you believe they’re biased, removing them is removing false legitimacy from biased content — something the government has an interest in. And no different than a journal retracting a flawed paper.

And since you want to discuss “fair argument”: there’s an obvious difference between allowing discourse on a public forum and publishing as an institution.

From the article: “ The White House, which was responsible for the assessments, said the information will be housed within NASA to comply with the law, but gave no further details.”

It doesn’t seem like the admin believes the reports are biased and need to be removed. Cool conspiracy though.

All (most?) bullies are cowards.

Journals remove papers that break rules, e.g. fabricating data or boning your postdocs. You seem to be waving at all of climate science and saying they all fail the same scrutiny. And you use the vaguest possible accusation: "they have bias", something that could be said or every scientific paper.

You don't need to "believe" that there's bias, you look at the data and you can tell whether they're biased or not.

I’m not making any claim, but it’s clear the people accused of removing them feel the bias delegitimizes the results — so the OP’s logic is incorrect. As I originally said.

Also, factually, they’re merely transferring the website to a different department, so this whole argument is moot.

I hope it's true that the hosting duties are simply passed to NASA. Surely you've seen enough in the past six months to not assume the stated plan is their actual intention.

Yeah. I thought about that difference (inst vs SM), but I figured it was cancelled out by the fact that scientific research is way more rigorous than a tweet no matter how you slice it.