http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/29/1...ironment-trump
Will be interesting to see how the legislature will feel about funding education and research that deals with the science of climate change.
Printable View
http://www.theverge.com/2016/12/29/1...ironment-trump
Will be interesting to see how the legislature will feel about funding education and research that deals with the science of climate change.
Yep, but it will happen in state legislatures first. Reminds me of how states (Texas, Kansas, PA to name a few) were only approving K-12 text books with "revisionist" American history, or Creationism/Intelligent Design. :(
Candidly putting this kind of language on the Websites is tantamount to trolling. The new language is actually more accurate in terms of the mission of the department. Environmental agencies are usually meant to protect the environment using the best available science. They are not meant to insert language declaring science settled; candidly I think that's anti-scientific, even though I believe humans certainly are having an impact on the environment that should be mitigated.
That said, as the left adopts climate issues as part of their general anti-capitalist agenda and tries to bash the issue as "settled" in every corner of the government lexicon, it invites pushback.
Except the science is settled. I guess they shouldn't mention anything about gravity either, just in case we learn something new about the phenomenon in a few centuries. When did you become such an apologist for the crazy wing of the GOP?
Since he started dating Candidly.
My new theory is that Dread is actually Scott Adams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Is science ever settled?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
More to the point, you of all people should know that the language government uses matters. It's not hard to imagine an advocacy group taking the original language on the site (which effectively pinpointed a single source for climate change) and turning it on the agency in question to encourage it to sue individuals or businesses.
The executive overreach of the past two decades makes it clear that avoiding government mission creep is very important, so we can prioritize helping the environment instead of quietly insinuating it into the government as a cudgel.
At the end of the day, the American right is highly persuadable on the need for environmental regulation. But is the left persuadable on the need to do it in a way that doesn't destroy commerce? I don't think so, as the left fundamentally doesn't believe/understand what makes commerce possible.
I would never drink Sam Adams :sour: :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Nothing in science is ever settled 100%. I guess you should stop using your phone, in case it causes cancer. Stop eating GMOs, in case we find out they could health problems. Stop flying, in case we find out planes have sub-optimal engineering. Stop taking medicine, as it might have unforeseen consequences. And stop using the internet; there hasn't been nearly enough study of its effects.
Dread, this was an excellent Bloomberg piece you might find persuasive:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...limate-science
The basics of climate change are settled. There are still some valid discussions over the exact details (e.g. the 'intensity' of climate change, the exact effects in specific areas) but the general story is as settled as science ever gets. And more importantly, the smart money agrees with this. There's a valid discussion about what we should do regarding mitigation and adaptation, but those are policy questions, not scientific ones.
Some people will only*begin to believe when the water is lapping at their feet or other effects which affect them directly.
Humanity does not deal well with long-term stuff.
This is fascinating, because in no way did I ever disagree that climate change is real. But your problem is the religious-like fervor that assumes I think that.
Believing that climate change is real doesn't mean every government agency must (or is even legislatively authorized) to assume the mantle of tackling climate change. The Wisconsin DNR isn't abdicating it's mission.
No, we're just tired of your bullshit ramblings, Dread. I'm already sorry that I read your post.
Except the DNR has a pretty big stake in the great lakes, and climate change can be a pretty big risk to said natural resource.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
I could possibly see your reasoning if it was a department in a state that didn't deal with a resource that wasn't so important economically, geographically, and politically. But only if they buried their head in the sand completely concerning global warming. In this case they are now supporting bad science and spreading doubt and thats bad, very bad.
But this is the DNR for Wisconsin and its dealing with the Great Lakes and how global warming could change them, and you're an idiot.
I wonder if some of you are as environmentally hypocritical as I suspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
So far Trump appointees have been asked about climate change in pretty much every hearing, including the CIA director. Why is that relevant to their jobs? This is religion, not science.
Unwillingness to accept mainstream science is relevant to most of those jobs.
because it's a pretty good test. Sorry if that exposes something embarrassing about yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
The current CIA director has gone on record to suggest climate change is a risk to national security. So yeah, the opinion of the next one is kinda important.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Good test of what? And what does it say about me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
You people can't extract your (or, frankly, my concurring) views on an issue from the core of good government.
When people have absolutely no relevant experience, what are you supposed to judge them on?
The fact that they have no relevant experience, maybe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Tell that to the GOP senators.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Oh, so it was the GOP senators who asked about climate change? That's what you're trying to communicate now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Charitably thinking they ask it to see if the nominees can accept scientific facts even if it isn't politically convenient for them (i.e. would the CIA director be prepared to state facts even if it isn't what his boss wants to hear). Plus more broadly speaking energy and climate policy does influence national security issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
More cynically (which I guess in politics is usually more realistic) it's trying to show to their base that they consider climate change important and the new administration is horrible at environmental questions.
They refuse to vote against the Trump nominees for racism and lack of experience. The Democrats are trying to find some other issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
..because the GOP cares more about the environment and climate change? :bulb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Relevant thought-processes and analytical approaches of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
But I think in this case this is more about misguided signalling and will have the unintended consequence of making candidates look especially good to Republican congressmen.
That's Loki in his spin cycle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
It's a fishing expedition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/24/14...th-agriculture
Nothing to see here
and the stupid continues to spread
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN15906G