Home | About | Donate

House GOP Again Trying to Gut Climate Science Funding


House GOP Again Trying to Gut Climate Science Funding

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Funds for NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—agencies that conduct critical climate change research, among other things—are on the chopping block as the Republican-led U.S. House and Senate hash out their 2017 spending bills.


First, the forecast. The hot, acidic oceans are going to be essentially pretty dead and ruled by jellyfish. The world's wheat belts are going to be tough places to grow wheat. California will have to find whatever water it can. So, there won't be that much food in the world.

Now, you know those people that you see at the library? They have relatives back in the old country. We're becoming one world, so that we can't do what we did to the First Peoples -- the cavalry charged, the Indians died and we got their land. So, there goes plan B.

Our best global hope is not for rolling out current solar products but for improving them a bit before rolling them out. If we don't improve, just roll out current solar products, a few manufacturers make a lot of domestic money but nobody in the other 95% of the world can easily afford to switch over. So, we really need a solar and climate (Manhattan Project or 1950s March of DImes, one model is less violent than the other).

Part of the Climate Manhattan Project is dead cheap, or should I say living cheap. Solar thermal innovation is going to cost somebody thousands of dollars to implement, not billions of dollars. Only an idiot wouldn't do this. Other pieces of the work will definitely be expensive. Lowering the lifetime cost of our transportation systems by a factor of ten is going to be a wonderful bargain in so many ways, but we might want to put half a billion dollars into the R&D.

In two cases now, a gorilla saw a human infant fall into their zoo enclosure and they comforted the poor primate thing, trying to preserve its life with love and instinct. I suspect that Harambe might have known that he could pay with his life for this comforting, but instinct won out.

It's the humans that I don't understand. Faced with staring at the hunger and possible death of their own great-grandchildren and generations beyond that, they don't act.


Do you see now why Trump is such a threat as the uber republican climate denier in chief? He wants to abolish science in effect. Do away with the EPA and you do away with the science it produces and the protections it offers. People seem to think Trump is better than the corrupt Dems and they claim that Trump is a people's choice republican but he isn't! He has the same views and opinions on climate change denial as do the other repubs and he intends to roll back the clock to the dismay of the whole damn planet.

Trump the climate change denier in chief - is dangerous to the planet. Dangerous to you and your children because he is remote and can't be reached by normal discussions. Be warned that as bad as it is that someone like Trump leading the republicans would be far far worse than ever you might've imagined.


I can't go there Mhunter. I mean you might be right of course but it seems a fairly sure bet that she would be better than Trump the climate change denier. If she did only that solar roof initiative that would help. I agree her promoting fracking is dismaying and typically blind for status quo politicians and supporting pipelines and trade deals etc equally so but she changed her views on them so who knows.

Trump is like that Monty Python sketch of the dead parrot. The guy goes back to the pet store to return a parrot who 'wasn't just sleeping' as he had been told but was actually dead! Everytime the customer says the bird is dead the clerk says 'No it isn't!' Even though it is obvious the bird is dead the clerk keeps insisting it isn't despite all evidence.

'President Trump, there is global warming.'

Trump answers for four straight years "No there isn't!"

Clinton is not pretending that it isn't happening. She would do a compromise deal like Obama where he adds regulations about reducing methane escape at the wellhead while approving exports of coal to other countries. We need better leadership than that but Trump wouldn't even do that much.


This is what happens when corporate money funds elections....Corporations sponser the stupidist morons to run for office and when they are elected this is what we get....STUPID..you cant fix stupid...you can only vote it out...But if the voters are also stupid then yer fdkd....Republican law makers are seriously poster boards for stupid.....If you look in a dictionary there will be a picture of a republican after the word stupid(Not really) but there should be....Stupid is as stupid does and republicans do stupid well.


One thing about Trump's proposal to abolish the EPA it should add even more energy to the efforts of environmental organizations to defeat Trump. Water pollution and air pollution activists will be really charged up. Between Trump's denying climate change and calling for gutting the EPA the environmental community no doubt will go all out.


Someone, please GUT the GOP!!!

My vote cannot do it alone.


Hillary Clinton is pretending that fracked natural gas is not a climate change problem but a partial solution. Want to buy a bridge to the future?

In the world of scientific reality, the massive methane releases now taking place from "dry" fracked wells and all along our incredibly ancient pipeline system are a driving force behind climate change. This year natural gas will cause considerably more climate change per therm of energy produced than will coal.

The next missing chunk of science is the Fukushima meltdowns. We know, despite the invocation of Japan's State Secrets act concerning Fukushima, that lots and lots of Japanese citizens are suffering from radiation poisoning. Visitors passing through Japan are allowed to go home and report what they have witnessed. One of the Fukushima reactors, the reactor with mixed plutonium and uranium, apparently went quite critical, causing a steam explosion straight upward that turned the reactor core into a fine dust. This was horrible. If our own country took Fukushima's hard economic and human health lessons to heart then we would shut down all nuclear power plant construction and shut down most or all nuclear power plants. Hillary's not about to do this.


We are not economically tied to these things and so we find it hard to understand why they aren't simply shut down and replaced with something safer. Imagine a mafioso bribing a cop to look the other way while they hijack a truck. It is a crime and cops are supposed to stop crime right? Well the reality is sometimes different.

If you had millions invested in nuclear then you'd have a lot of incentive to see its continued use whether it was safe or not. All it takes is for people to rationalize about it being safe (till it isn't). Like that Japanese prime minister who insisted that nuclear is safe even after Fukishima showed otherwise. He isn't stupid nor blind but he wants it safe or no. Now why is that? Exxon knew about global warming. Phillip Morris knew about cigarettes and cancer. And so on. Did the truth stop them? Did they stop squeezing the goose that laid the golden egg as it grew sick and was near death?

Trump is arrogant blind and like a half crazed monarch he believes what he wants to believe. Hillary is also arrogant cynical but plays the game more wisely as she is more expert in understanding public perception. I figure she will be like Obama - using halfway measures with plenty of compromises to corporations.

Bernie is the smart one but he is honest and as we see that is not how this game is played.

Trump = denial

Hillary = compromise

Bernie = sanity


Fracking is bad and so is nuclear but you need to show how you can replace the energy. Fracked gas accounts for about two-thirds of natural gas in the US and natural gas accounts for about one-third of electricity. Nuclear accounts for about 20% of electricity. Would you replace natural gas and nuclear with coal? How much could be replaced with renewables, energy efficiency, and energy conservation? If Clinton is president she would have to be concerned about an adequate supply of electricity. She couldn't only be concerned about problems with fracking and nuclear. She would be dealing with the real world. Hillary would not have the luxury of living in a make believe world, and neither would any other president.


Republicans: read carefully! You are pooping in your own nest!