Donald Trump’s presidency has not been good for science or scientists. Since Trump took office 15 months ago, his administration has proposed to terminate many federally funded research programs and slash funding for others. Trump’s appointees are working to roll back environmental regulations and conservation policies.
I applaud Dr. Madin’s decision. The more scientists who are willing to speak out against Trump’s “war on science” the better. This is the first experience in the US with an authoritarian president, who appears to favor fascism, and speaking out the truth about scientific facts is vital. Supporting the Union of Concerned Scientists is one small step that people can do to protect science from being undermined by Trump. The right wing has especially targeted Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann and he has fought back with a lot of success. People can also support the March for Science which is working to protect science as well. Trump has focused on attacking science and the free press, two sources of objective facts that our democracy depends on. Without science and a free press there can be no democracy which is a critical goal of the right wing extremists in their strategy to achieve their objectives.
Goebbels pioneering work included a wide range of contrived enemies of which people were but one of many categories.
To keep his base engaged, new enemies will continue to be added to Trump’s ever growing enemy list. Enemies on Trump’s list include facts and evidence. His base therefore does not simply ignore facts and evidence, they aggressively attack them per Trump and faux news network commands.
Yes. If we woke up tomorrow and knew for sure we had no enemies left, would we still need government? I would argue that government could begin to represent the vast majority who want clean air and water, food free from contaminants, and an economy that rewards honest labor more generously than it does insider trading—which explains why enemies will continue to be contrived for us.
I thank the good doctor for fighting the good fight and encourage folks to consider signing a petition launched by the Union of Concerned Scientists.
I’m renewing what meagre support I can give and get on the e-mailing list. Also some good analyses on their site not being covered by the media.
“Human populated” is the closest she came to saying “human overpopulated”.
“It is really exhausting to live in a dictatorship of ‘Me’, which is basically a tyranny of others.”
― Stefan Molyneux
She also didn’t mention if any of those 3 kids she had with her environmentally aware husband were adopted or if the younger are twins. If we can’t expect people like this to control their fertility, how are we going to ask everybody else to make environmentally responsible choices.
Thank you, we desperately need your expertise.
Stupid as ever.
Holy crap, I hadn’t heard about Al Gore’s 2010 hypocrisy (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/08/home/la-hm-hotprop-20100508) until today. I assume you know that many people on the left can’t stand Al Gore for this and quite a few other reasons. I agree with you that rich people should not over-consume (or over-reproduce) and as a lefty, I’m more than happy to have rules made to encourage or mandate this better behavior. But your attitude seems to be - well if Al Gore is acting this way, must not be any problem and I want my cake too. Climate change is definitely happening and if you do some independent reading, you will see the case is solid enough. Does everything point exactly the right way? Probably not, but that is not the way science works. Plenty of stuff points the wrong way at least temporarily and then some denier pounces on a small piece and uses it repeatedly. Don’t listen to Al Gore - go to http://www.realclimate.org/ and read what actual scientists in the field have to say - you will hopefully gain some respect for the truth.
As far as Al Gore’s house in Montecito being evidence he doesn’t think the oceans will rise several meters by 2100, that is a ridiculous conclusion (all over the net unfortunately). 1) Gore will be dead way before 2100, 2) I absolutely guarantee his house is more than 100 ft above seal level, probably more (the town is listed at 180 ft and his house, http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/al-gores-house-2/view/google/ looks to be right at the foot of the mountains).
Disregarding an entire body of scientific evidence based on a conspiracy theory is something only a stupid fuckwit would do.
A hyperbolic stupid fuckwit, indeed.
I already said I agreed with you about Gore’s absurd carbon footprint.
To me this sentence implies that Gore is not really worried about the ocean rising in his lifetime (or perhaps his kids if they are going to live there). I pointed out his house is not oceanfront, but over 100 (probably over 200) vertical feet up from the ocean (and set back - definitely not oceanfront - I’m sure it’s got an ocean view though). If you don’t want to admit you are wrong on that point, well that just makes you look that much worse to the eyes of pretty much everybody on this board.
I’m sure none of us will get through to you, but my point is that on any issue there a multitude of people involved - some are hypocrites like Gore, and some are corrupted completely unethical scientists who falsify data. Does that make it impossible to find out the big picture? No. Do some research and come back with a coherent argument next time.
In general my view is that name calling doesn’t really advance an argument or convince anybody. You could drop your name calling too (rubes, Regressive) if you feel similarly. Or more precisely, I don’t really care if you want to name call a particular person like Gore or a particular corrupt scientist, but it is pointless to do so to an entire group of people (and many on the left make this mistake when talking about Trump voters - some of which we need to win back). I will dispute your claim since you ask:
Let’s start with NOAA. From https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/no-data-manipulation-at-noaa/ :
But in interviews with the Associated Press and E&E, an online energy and environmental news outlet, Bates said he had not accused his colleagues of data manipulation.
Bates told the AP on Feb. 6 that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious” involved with his colleagues’ study. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form,” he said.
Doesn’t seem as cut and dry as you claim.
NSA? - I assume you mean NASA. Are you referring to https://realclimatescience.com/2017/02/nasa-noaa-climate-data-is-fake-data/ ? I skimmed this piece and the comments and again - seems quite refutable.
IPCC? Are you referring to https://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Medieval-Warm-Period.htm ? This article covers that to my satisfaction.
As I said, I do think there are unethical scientists (unethical people are in every field) and there have been issues. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese covers one such issue.
I recommend you read Trog’s posts on this site. He his quite adamant that the right answer for climate change is Nuclear Power which is not a popular idea here. He also advocates for Democrats to bring in a consensus position on 3rd trimester abortions into their platform (less controversial here, but still not popular I would say). In each of these cases, he argues very methodically and carefully - no name calling needed. He has convinced me on the abortion platform issue, but I’m still on the fence on Gen IV nuclear reactors being part of the solution. I don’t see you convincing anybody here ever. But if you feel like you need to keep injecting your invective, go right ahead. I will be ignoring you unless the quality of your posts improves.