I don't have a bias for anything. I have my own viewpoints. I don't know what you think I downplayed. I stated my opinion on the matters presented and provided rationales for everything on why I think what I do.
And what President hasn't had things served to them on a silver platter? Who cares. The CDC wanted to do that, which was their own decision, and have probably done it numerous times before, just no one cared until now.
You as well; I cannot help it if you do believe it. I don't care if you think President Trump is "waging a war on science", you're entitled to believe whatever you want. But I am listening to you. I read your link and replied to it on what it had to say, which was pretty much nothing, except they were unsure why these things were supposably happening.
You can continue to use "whataboutism" as your fallacy scapegoat, or you can actually have a debate without pointing out false fallacies and refuse to reply with any intellectual content. Again, read the definition of your "whataboutism".
Here, I'll make it easy: Whataboutism - Wikipedia
"attempt to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument"
...which I did, I directly disproved that President Trump banned words and that President Obama did ban words. The hypocrisy is in the outrage on hindering freedom of speech and ideas. Here's a source: Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document | Fox News
From reading this source, it does point out the number (50) of scientists that arbitrarily resigned who worked on climate based projects. It also says that scientists were "afraid to utter the words 'climate change'". I can see how some people might take that as trying to dismantle science. However, those who resigned, either forcefully or voluntarily, are still free to work for a privately owned company to continue their work openly.
Also, (I can see it now, you guys are really going to think I'm a nut, but feel free to take your jabs) not every scientist backs up the "climate change" we know, with their research. Yes, climate change is real. We all know this, it's a fact, and has been occurring since the beginning of Earth. The issue is, climate change is sold as an event that is going to have devastating effects on the Earth in the next few decades. I err on the side of that isn't true, which is what many scientists, mentioned above, describe as what climate change isn't. Climate change is slow and won't be noticeable in our lifetime. It is ever occurring whether we all drive around Hummers or not. Hummers are not going to speed up climate change. It doesn't have a large enough effect.
The volcano eruption in Bali on the other hand, DOES change the climate, more significantly than anything an entire first-world country could do in 100 years.
There could be many reasons press releases are wanted to be vetted before reaching the public. I'm not interested in playing the guessing game.
This is again, more of less money, less hiring, rationale that science is being silenced. It brings up that certain chemical that can cause disease and cancer were ignored when setting regulations. Not ideal to have these chemicals in products, but why would anyone care if you used one chemical versus another. I doubt the administration cares as they have bigger fish to fry. They didn't include their actual research on the product so how would anyone know if the risk was substantial or minimal. There is a risk with virtually every product, and we just don't know about it.
The Paris Agreement is a different story. I'm glad we got out of that. We can do all the things the Paris Agreement set forth to decrease emissions and the like but won't have to pay for other countries to have high-tech equipment. I'm not about sending money everywhere else but home. Additionally, the actual Agreement made U.S. to agree to all of these terms while allowing China to continue their normal protocols for the next decade. Sure a deal was made, but why would the U.S. agree to something we can do ourselves without using our money for other countries?
I'm not saying the articles are false, but don't you see? I want solid proof. Big, fat, stinking proof. Not "well these things happened and we think it's because of this person". Undeniable proof.