• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’

Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

Trump is trying to control our free speech!!!! :2mad::2mad:

Obama banned, "terrorist attack". Was he trying to control free speech?
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

A sign that says 'Latinos Support Trump', and you call it "objective reality doesn't exist, that the world is his daydream".

If not that Trump had zero Latino support, what did you mean by this post?

Why is he holding that sign? He wants to tell people that Latinos, the group, generally support him. If he wanted to make that point, he should cite poll data rather than try to feed the conclusion to his base without evidence.

He's intentionally misleading his supporters. He's rewriting reality to suit his political goals. Those of us who value freedom reject the oppression of delusional propaganda.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

You mean if you want to commit heresy then you're going to get taken to the rack, unless you have free thinkers like those in the American Meteorological Society who were righteously indignant at the attempt to stifle scientific inquiry and stood up to the inquisitors.
Vague similes like "get taken to the rack" don't actually communicate anything, so really there isn't much specific here that I can respond to. As far as I can tell, the AMS supports the idea anthropogenic global warming.

I will say that it is part of the culture of science to pressure and dismiss those who go against the mainstream. It is both a good and a bad thing, but in the end it is a vital part of the scientific process and doesn't have anything to do with climate change in particular (even if the political implications ratchet up the pressure). In fact, if that element was missing from climatology, I would be worried about the field because it would be lacking one of the vital checks that keeps science moving forward.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

Vague similes like "get taken to the rack" don't actually communicate anything, so really there isn't much specific here that I can respond to.

Did you read my link in the original post you responded to? My "vague smile," as you call it, was a metaphor representing the idea that scientists who don't toe the global warming line should lose their positions in academia and have their research grants eliminated. They also should have their reputations ruined and get pilloried by the press.


The AMS also supports free scientific inquiry:

Publicly singling out specific researchers based on perspectives they have expressed and implying a failure to appropriately disclose funding sources — and thereby
questioning their scientific integrity — sends a chilling message to all academic researchers. Further, requesting copies of the researcher’s communications related to external funding opportunities or the preparation of testimony impinges on the free pursuit of ideas that is central to the concept of academic freedom.

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.c...-resources-on-challenges-to-academic-freedom/

I will say that it is part of the culture of science to pressure and dismiss those who go against the mainstream. It is both a good and a bad thing, but in the end it is a vital part of the scientific process and doesn't have anything to do with climate change in particular (even if the political implications ratchet up the pressure). In fact, if that element was missing from climatology, I would be worried about the field because it would be lacking one of the vital checks that keeps science moving forward.

There is a process for evaluating and critiquing academic studies. It's called "peer review":

AMS has also been a strong champion of the scientific process. That process includes peer-review of scientific articles followed by further vetting, testing, and validating of concepts and ideas by independent experts — discarding finding that cannot successfully withstand such testing. Scientists face strong professional incentives to prove each other wrong and relish doing so. This constitutes an extremely robust and self-correcting nature for scientific research. This process is not without instances of failure, but indeed, we know of those failures precisely because of this self-correcting nature. The scientific process has an overall record of success that is outstanding and it has served this nation and the world well for many decades.

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.c...concerning-hearing-on-climate-change-science/

Note that even scientists such as Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., who believed in climate change but questioned the orthodoxy that it was causing more major weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods, found his livelihood under assault to the point that he felt compelled to quit. His column for Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight website was also discontinued, and Professor Pielke proffered an opinion as to why that occurred:

Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver ’s FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank’s climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer : “I think it’s fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538.”

I understand why Mr. Podesta—most recently Hillary Clinton ’s campaign chairman—wanted to drive me out of the climate-change discussion. When substantively countering an academic’s research proves difficult, other techniques are needed to banish it. That is how politics sometimes works, and professors need to understand this if we want to participate in that arena.

More troubling is the degree to which journalists and other academics joined the campaign against me. What sort of responsibility do scientists and the media have to defend the ability to share research, on any subject, that might be inconvenient to political interests—even our own?

Extreme Weather expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic’ | Climate Depot
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

I'll agree that one is worse than the other, but the government giving this type of directive to anybody is disturbing, particularly since our president was supposedly a big proponent of free speech. Perhaps his predecessor gave similar memos, and I just haven't heard of them? Anyone have a link?




You'll have to excuse my skepticism. When I looked up who the author was, I found this: James M. Taylor - SourceWatch



As for my personal experience, my city went from having an extended drought to flash flooding, which displaced tens of thousands of people and cost $70 million in damages.

And to address the actual article...



So I looked up how many tornadoes hit the US in 2016: 976.

Thank you for the links.

Concerning the 976 number. Is that high? I looked at a historical base that sorrily is quite short and ends in 2012. But take say 2010 and you find 1275. There is relative increase since 1980, but that is not really a long enough time line to say much about climate matters. Explore Every Tornado Across the United States Since 1980 Through This Interactive Map | Science | Smithsonian
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

The idea that the climate of the planet can be controlled and directed by the prudent control of Anthropogenic CO2 emission is a matter of faith among the indoctrinated.

I found your problem. No matter how many times I explain it to you, you still believe in this dumb ass straw man.

You will never understand climate science, you will never understand discussion of climate change. Because you can't get over this one, hilariously wrong idea. I've explained this to you, personally, several times. Just stop talking about the topic since you don't even understand the basic points of debate. You don't see me spouting off on the merits of String Theory, do you?
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase "climate change" - POLITICO



:shock:

Banning the use of certain phrases sounds exactly like political correctness. I thought Trump was supposed to be anti-PC. :confused:

From the article.

Officials at the State Department and in other DOE offices said they had not been given a banned words list

A DOE spokeswoman denied there had been a new directive. "No words or phrases have been banned for this office or anyone in the department,” said DOE spokeswoman Lindsey Geisler.

"We have definitively not received anything on banned words, not even orally," the State official said.

Which makes this fake news until there is some actual proof. Sounds more like disgruntled employees trying to making waves.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

Why is he holding that sign? He wants to tell people that Latinos, the group, generally support him. If he wanted to make that point, he should cite poll data rather than try to feed the conclusion to his base without evidence.

He's intentionally misleading his supporters. He's rewriting reality to suit his political goals. Those of us who value freedom reject the oppression of delusional propaganda.

Oh geez. :lol:

If you are worried about "oppression of delusional propaganda", I think you need to be more concerned about the biased fake news media, aka Democrat / liberal / progressive political propaganda arm. How long have they been parroting the Russia / Trump collusion without a single shred of solid evidence? Some 8 months or more?

If you want to hold Trump to that standard, to not acknowledge someone's sign at a political rally, then you are going to have to hold every politician to that standard, which includes all your favorite Democrats, liberals, and progressive. 'Cause guess what. They do the same thing. Hell, every politician does the same thing. So you singling out Trump because you hate him is rather hypocritical of you.

What of all the media braying for some 12 months how Trump didn't have a chance, that Hillary's going to win, including many of the taking heads, and many in her campaign as well, as herself as well? Shouldn't the same standards apply there?
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

Did you read my link in the original post you responded to? My "vague smile," as you call it, was a metaphor representing the idea that scientists who don't toe the global warming line should lose their positions in academia and have their research grants eliminated.
Certainly, Congressional representatives have to be careful about how they get their questions answered, but on the other hand, testifying before Congress is not publishing in an academic journal. There is no peer review for that testimony. In fact, it can actually be an end around the scientific process when one's claims don't have merit.

They also should have their reputations ruined and get pilloried by the press.
I would prefer this to the press pretending that science doesn't have established norms or that funding can't influence a position (especially when that position falls outside of the norms). Once again we are outside of the realm of peer review and I think the press are doing their jobs in the case of the NYT article mentioned.

Note that even scientists such as Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., who believed in climate change but questioned the orthodoxy that it was causing more major weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods, found his livelihood under assault to the point that he felt compelled to quit. His column for Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight website was also discontinued, and Professor Pielke proffered an opinion as to why that occurred:
Pielke claims to be in agreement with the IPCC, but he is not. I don't condone personal attacks, but this guy, AFAICT, seems to revel in misrepresenting data, so I'm not really seeing a loss to the scientific community here.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

Certainly, Congressional representatives have to be careful about how they get their questions answered, but on the other hand, testifying before Congress is not publishing in an academic journal. There is no peer review for that testimony. In fact, it can actually be an end around the scientific process when one's claims don't have merit.

How is a scientist supposed to have his research peer reviewed if his fellow academics, members of the media, politicians, and think tank billionaires are doing everything in their power to silence them? We're talking about academic freedom:

Publicly singling out specific researchers based on perspectives they have expressed and implying a failure to appropriately disclose funding sources — and thereby questioning their scientific integrity — sends a chilling message to all academic researchers. Further, requesting copies of the researcher’s communications related to external funding opportunities or the preparation of testimony impinges on the free pursuit of ideas that is central to the concept of academic freedom.

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.c...-resources-on-challenges-to-academic-freedom/

I would prefer this to the press pretending that science doesn't have established norms or that funding can't influence a position (especially when that position falls outside of the norms).

Reasonable people should question any "norms" based on groupthink or witch-hunts:

I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.

Instead, my research was under constant attack for years by activists, journalists and politicians. In 2011 writers in the journal Foreign Policy signaled that some accused me of being a “climate-change denier.” I earned the title, the authors explained, by “questioning certain graphs presented in IPCC reports.” That an academic who raised questions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in an area of his expertise was tarred as a denier reveals the groupthink at work.

Yet I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases. The graph was later revealed to have been based on invented and inaccurate information, as I documented in my book “The Climate Fix.” The insurance industry scientist Robert-Muir Wood of Risk Management Solutions had smuggled the graph into the IPCC report. He explained in a public debate with me in London in 2010 that he had included the graph and misreferenced it because he expected future research to show a relationship between increasing disaster costs and rising temperatures.

When his research was eventually published in 2008, well after the IPCC report, it concluded the opposite: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and normalized catastrophe losses.” Whoops.

Roger Pielke Jr.: My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

Pielke claims to be in agreement with the IPCC, but he is not. I don't condone personal attacks, but this guy, AFAICT, seems to revel in misrepresenting data, so I'm not really seeing a loss to the scientific community here.

It seems as though ANYONE who questions the orthodoxy on "climate change" (which, interestingly, used to be called "global warming" in Al Gore's day) becomes a target and a "climate change denier." (Why don't the priests of climate change just cut the crap and call the skeptics "heretics"?) In the earlier example I noted concerning Congressman Grijalva's witch-hunt, Pielke was just one academic targeted by the congressman:

“Incessant attacks and smears are effective,” Pielke lamented this week.

Other researchers Grijalva is targeting include David Legates of the University of Delaware, John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Judith Curry of Georgia Tech and Richard Lindzen of MIT. Many of them reject the notion that they are climate change skeptics, although their work has drawn the attention of the skeptic camp. Christy, for example, testified before Congress that climate models overstate the atmosphere’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases, while Curry has maintained that forecasting the climate is more uncertain that many scientists admit.

Dems' climate probe brings 'witch hunt' accusations - POLITICO
 
Last edited:
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

Joe.jpg
 
Re: Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’

This amounts to censorship, and censorship shows that the party doing the censoring is afraid of the truth and is attempting to manipulate perceptions.

This story by Politaco of a rumor appears to be a typical liubera news media lie

There is no evidence to back it up

But it did produce one interesting quote

"Ignoring the climate crisis will not make it go away, will not create jobs in the booming clean energy economy, and will not make our country great," Liz Perera, climate policy director at Sierra Club, said in a statement."

There is no crisis except in the mind of freaked out environmentalists
 
Re: Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’

This story by Politaco of a rumor appears to be a typical liubera news media lie

There is no evidence to back it up

But it did produce one interesting quote

"Ignoring the climate crisis will not make it go away, will not create jobs in the booming clean energy economy, and will not make our country great," Liz Perera, climate policy director at Sierra Club, said in a statement."

There is no crisis except in the mind of freaked out environmentalists

I do understand your point, and up to a certain point, agree with it.

I guess the reason some see it as a crisis is because they are looking out for posterity. Is it a crisis today or next year? Probably not, but at some point in the future for those living on the planet, drought and a poisoned atmosphere will reach crisis levels that will greatly effect the human species and many others. The planet is changing, but that is natural. There is circumstantial evidence that all the planets we can observe in our solar system appear to be changing in a similar manner.

The Sierra Club must call it a crisis because that's what they do to stay alive. But they might be right.

And pretending that the change will not effect our lives is short-sighted to say the least. I'm not sure that humans are a factor in that change, but I think it's highly likely they are. However I think we've passed the tipping point. That means that there is nothing the human species can do to stop the change.

I know that by changing rules and procedures over the last 40 years, we have improved the environment. I think we should continue those efforts, with much public discussion.
 
Re: Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’

I do understand your point, and up to a certain point, agree with it.

I guess the reason some see it as a crisis is because they are looking out for posterity. Is it a crisis today or next year? Probably not, but at some point in the future for those living on the planet, drought and a poisoned atmosphere will reach crisis levels that will greatly effect the human species and many others. The planet is changing, but that is natural. There is circumstantial evidence that all the planets we can observe in our solar system appear to be changing in a similar manner.

The Sierra Club must call it a crisis because that's what they do to stay alive. But they might be right.

And pretending that the change will not effect our lives is short-sighted to say the least. I'm not sure that humans are a factor in that change, but I think it's highly likely they are. However I think we've passed the tipping point. That means that there is nothing the human species can do to stop the change.

I know that by changing rules and procedures over the last 40 years, we have improved the environment. I think we should continue those efforts, with much public discussion.

Climate change is natural and never ceases

I'm just thankful that its global warming instead of the far more serious global cooling
 
Re: Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’

Climate change is natural and never ceases

I'm just thankful that its global warming instead of the far more serious global cooling

Both are bad. If global temperatures increase by 5 degrees Celsius, we will witness a mass extinction event.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

How is a scientist supposed to have his research peer reviewed if his fellow academics, members of the media, politicians, and think tank billionaires are doing everything in their power to silence them? We're talking about academic freedom:
Well, if his fellow academics don't want his stuff published, then that is that. It doesn't matter what scientific field one is in, the job of the peer reviewed publications is to publish what they deem to be scientifically valuable work. That is the consequence of peer review and precisely what American Meteorological Society was advocating for.

There is absolutely no shortage of platforms for climate skeptics, they are not silenced by any means. I mean, look at the subject of this thread! Obviously climate change denial is getting plenty of exposure and far more policy consideration than it deserves.


Reasonable people should question any "norms" based on groupthink or witch-hunts:
That's not what the norms are based on.


It seems as though ANYONE who questions the orthodoxy on "climate change" (which, interestingly, used to be called "global warming" in Al Gore's day) becomes a target and a "climate change denier." (Why don't the priests of climate change just cut the crap and call the skeptics "heretics"?) In the earlier example I noted concerning Congressman Grijalva's witch-hunt, Pielke was just one academic targeted by the congressman:
Ok, this congressman wrote some letters and now the world has changed? Other than Pielke noting it as one of the reasons for his downfall, I don't see much of an effect. I mean, I can see why someone could be worried about a "chilling effect", but the congressman apologized and if you look at the political composition of the current US government, I just don't see where the political pressure would come from. The POTUS is a climate denier and so is the head of frickin EPA, Congress is controlled by Republicans so all of this hand wringing seems a bit outdated. To use the language of conservatives, I think someone is playing the victim card a little too strongly.
 
Re: Energy Department climate office bans use of phrase ‘climate change’

Both are bad. If global temperatures increase by 5 degrees Celsius, we will witness a mass extinction event.

Thats nonsense

We will have a climate different than today but nothing we can't adapt to
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

I wasn't stating that his numbers were inaccurate. I was stating that his numbers are less relevant than 2016 numbers.

Short term data seems more like weather than climate.

In the last 2000 or so years, our world has warmed by about 0.7 degrees.

Over the last 8000 or so years our world has cooled by about a half a degree.

Far from being a cause for panic, this strikes me as being astonishingly consistent.

Our recent warming trend is a rise from the coolest point of this interglacial in the last 10,000 years or so.

What the shrieking zealots are citing as a cause for panic seems to be more like a return to normal.
 
Re: Trump Administration Bans the phrase "Climate Change" from being used

I found your problem. No matter how many times I explain it to you, you still believe in this dumb ass straw man.

You will never understand climate science, you will never understand discussion of climate change. Because you can't get over this one, hilariously wrong idea. I've explained this to you, personally, several times. Just stop talking about the topic since you don't even understand the basic points of debate. You don't see me spouting off on the merits of String Theory, do you?

So you are saying that changing the Anthropogenic emission of CO2 will NOT affect climate?
 
Back
Top Bottom