EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studies

Reactions to the alleged EPA publication halt

• Many commenters see the reported pause on EPA scientists’ publications as consistent with a broader pattern of censorship and hostility to science by the current administration.
• A minority argues the article may overstate things: a couple of staffers report being told to pause, HQ denies it, no written directive has surfaced; this could be a “clearance bottleneck” from reorganization rather than a formal gag order.
• Others reply that organizational chaos, staff cuts, and centralization are the censorship tactic: you don’t need memos if you can choke capacity and create fear.
• Several note that this administration often avoids paper trails, making it unrealistic to expect explicit “do not publish” directives.

Trust, whistleblowers, and rule of law

• Multiple comments argue that career scientists are more credible than an administration widely perceived as habitually dishonest, including to courts.
• There is debate over evidence standards: some want documents or journal confirmations before declaring “censorship,” others say multiple whistleblowers are already strong evidence.
• Discussion extends to federal courts increasingly refusing to assume the executive acts in good faith, and to repeated episodes where government lawyers allegedly misled judges.

Perceived anti-environment, anti-science agenda

• Many see the administration as fundamentally opposed to the EPA’s mission: promoting fossil fuels, downplaying climate change, and undermining environmental regulation.
• “Clean coal” and hostility to wind power are treated as emblematic of policy driven by ideology, greed, or image concerns, not by science or public health.
• Some commenters express deep pessimism, claiming impactful science in the U.S. is “dead” under current conditions.

Psychology and politics of climate denial

• Explanations offered include:
  • Tribal signaling and “owning” the out-group (including racial and cultural resentments).
  • Willingness to accept personal harm if it hurts disliked groups (“hurting yourself to hurt others”).
  • Long-running anti-intellectualism and media-driven propaganda from fossil-fuel interests.
  • Identity built around unrestricted profit and dominance; reality is bent to fit that identity.
• Others emphasize simple material incentives: politicians and institutions funded by coal/oil push narratives like “clean coal” because it pays, not because they believe it.

China, competitiveness, and climate

• One thread argues aggressive U.S. climate action could weaken U.S. power while China continues polluting, making global outcomes worse.
• Multiple replies counter that:
  • China is rapidly scaling renewables and EVs and often outpacing the U.S. on deployment.
  • Per-capita and historical U.S. emissions are higher, so blaming China is ethically and empirically shaky.
  • Using China as a reason for inaction effectively values Chinese lives less and ignores per-person responsibility.

Institutional workarounds and erosion of trust

• Several commenters call for robust, non-federal institutions (professional societies, NGOs, blue states, private initiatives) to maintain scientific and public-health standards when federal agencies are captured or politicized.
• Example: medical groups creating independent vaccine schedules due to distrust of federal health agencies.
• Others note limits: federal funding and constitutional structure make it hard for states or private actors to fully substitute for federal basic-research and regulatory roles.

Polarization, voting systems, and constitutional structure

• Some blame extreme polarization on first-past-the-post elections, which structurally encourage a two-party, tribal dynamic.
• There is discussion of U.S. Senate malapportionment and the 1929 cap on House seats as mechanisms that overrepresent smaller, often more conservative states.
• Others argue this is not “both sides”: only one major party is seen as systematically running on anti-science, climate-denial platforms.

Overall sentiment

• The dominant tone is alarm and anger: the episode is viewed less as an isolated EPA dispute and more as another symptom of authoritarian drift, contempt for law and norms, and deliberate dismantling of scientific governance.