> Sure but there's plenty of other things we should be measuring too. Canceling one doesn't mean we're against measuring things.

But you've shown very clearly that you're against measuring THIS specific thing. You've authored multiple long posts defending the idea that we can and should defund this specific study.

You've taken the default position that the majority of people upset over this are upset about the concept of defunding science. While there are concerns like that present here, we're discussing how concerning it is that Trump, who's shown himself to be anti-modern-energy & anti-environmental-regulation, is going to further damage the future of the US energy economy with actions like this.

> I'm pretty sure President Obama is the one that championed the phrase "Clean Coal".

He said it a few times, then distanced himself from it as it came out what an absolute fraud it is. His admin also kicked off this effort we're describing, so maybe we can balance the accounting for this one instance.

> It didn't make much sense when he said it either (though sequestration is interesting).

Thanks, Wikipedia. Carbon Sequestration is indeed linked off the "Clean Coal" page, but is ultimately an unrelated topic. Indeed, multiple carbon sequestration efforts are underway and they in no way justify the use of coal power plants or offset the damage of coal mining.

> So go make some money and fund a project to research the negative effects of things you don't like. Or lobby your representatives to do so. Or organize your fellow citizens to elect a group of officials that will do so.

We have done all these things, and part of the success of those efforts was the Obama administration kicking off these studies. But thanks for recapping history and implying that no one has done anything, thus far.

> It's "your cherries" because you're clearly offended by something in this action.

Offended? No, that'd imply that I'm surprised and was expecting better. I don't. The Trump industry is meticulously dismantling as much climate science, environmental regulation, and health & safety oversight as they can. This administration makes the W. Bush admin look positively pro-science.

> If you're of the opinion that budgets should be balanced and taxes should be low, then you have to be more selective in what you can afford.

But again, you show up here to say that tiny sums of cost for informing regulatory oversight are bad. You've dodged multiple attempts by multiple people to engage on subsidization, defense, and entitlement inefficiency. You've dodged or ignored it.

> All I've claimed from the beginning is that I think we need to look at funding proposals individually.

Your actions have demonstrated very clearly: you're not interested in balancing the budget. You're interested in defunding this science. That's why I asked Why. I repeat: Why are you interested in defending the decision to defund a study on the coal industry's health & safety impact?

You keep talking about how we should consider specifics, but you yourself refuse to address the specifics of this effort nor the more constrained domain of US budget balancing. This is why people don't believe you when you say this, it seems more like a quotable defense than a description of your actions in these threads.

> Similarly just because the prior administration funded a project does not mean the current one must continue it.

Trump & the Republican hose have made it pretty clear that the opposite is true: if the Obama admin started it, it should be erased. Too bad they're all so bad at their jobs.