Monkey_Plunkett
Member
As an Arctic researcher, I'm used to gaps in data. Just over 1% of US Arctic waters have been surveyed to modern standards. In truth, some of the maps we use today haven't been updated since the second world war. Navigating uncharted waters can prove difficult, but it comes with the territory of working in such a remote part of the world.
Over the past two months though, I've been navigating a different type of uncharted territory: the deleting of what little data we have by the Trump administration.
Anticipating a massive overhaul by the new administration, scientists around the world sounded the alarm to copy as many files off of government sites before they were altered or removed. As the inauguration neared, hundreds of guerrilla archivists took up the call. From Philadelphia to Toronto, hackers raced against the clock to protect crucial datasets before they disappeared. Volunteers tried tirelessly to save what they could, but the federal government is a massive warehouse of information. Some data was bound to get left behind.
The consequences of vanishing citations, however, pose a far more serious consequence than website updates. Each defunct page is an effort by the Trump administration to deliberately undermine our ability to make good policy decisions by limiting access to scientific evidence.
These back-to-back data deletions come at a time when the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the global average. Just this week, it was reported that the Arctic's winter sea ice dropped to its lowest level in recorded history. The impacts of a warming, ice-free Arctic are already clear: a decline in habitat for polar bears and other Arctic animals; increases in coastal erosion that force Alaskans to abandon their homes; and the opening up of shipping routes with unpredictable conditions and hazardous icebergs.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...researcher-donald-trump-deleting-my-citations
This is absolutely horrifying, It's going to make a lot of research impossible, because you won't have any starting point or any data for comparison. I get that he doesn't believe in global warming so therefore the data should be meaningless to him and all he needs to do is deny it, so why delete it?
Unless of course they know the data is valid and they are knowingly deleting it which should be a crime against humanity. This research is all taxpayer funded by the way.
Kill planet if old.