Those most passionate about capital-S Science are often aggressively anti-Trump, making them prone to accepting reports like this uncritically.
If the State Department spends a crazy sum maintaining the air quality app, questioning that expense is fair and pretending otherwise only undermines scientific credibility.
This article is a "pro-science" talking point because it admits embassies were told to keep monitors running and data sharing could resume if funding returned.
So at this point, there's not even necessarily a gap in the actual data. The only proof this shutdown was unavoidable comes from those who carried it out. Funny how that goes...
>If the State Department spends a crazy sum maintaining the air quality app, questioning that expense is fair and pretending otherwise only undermines scientific credibility
How does spending and the debate around what what is justified have anything to do with scientific credibility?
Do you have a source that suggests the State Department spends a crazy sum maintaining the air quality app, or are you Just Asking Questions™? I mean, I've found those most passionate about capital-T Trump are often aggressively anti-science, making them prone to accepting transparently petty bullshit uncritically.
Not that I'm saying you're doing that, of course. Although it is weird you use the phrase "pro-science talking point" as if being pro-science was a bad thing. Do you think it's a bad thing? Just asking questions.
Yes, but the same contractor manages the AirNow Data Management Center [0], and according to this talk [0] DOSAir is the actual program here, and they are piggybacking the EPA AirNow data infrastructure, and per the OP they are keeping the sensors running.
So I'm all the more confused about what exactly necessitates this specific State Dept-directed funding freeze that happens to impact only the network that communicates the data from embassies into AirNow, but not the data center or other data producers.
If the State Department spends a crazy sum maintaining the air quality app, questioning that expense is fair and pretending otherwise only undermines scientific credibility.
This article is a "pro-science" talking point because it admits embassies were told to keep monitors running and data sharing could resume if funding returned.
So at this point, there's not even necessarily a gap in the actual data. The only proof this shutdown was unavoidable comes from those who carried it out. Funny how that goes...