• 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!

Ignorance and science denial takes over the White House.

R

Russell797

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 10, 2015
Messages
4,394
Reaction score
1,063
Location
Massachusetts
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
All references to climate change have been removed from Whitehouse.gov.

Next to come will be the demolition of the EPA, removal of our participation in the Paris climate agreement and a shift in funding away from NASA Earth studies science.

The foxes are now running the hen house.
 
Last edited:
Russell797 said:
All references to climate change have been removed from Whitehouse.gov.

Next to come will be the demolition of the EPA, removal of our participation in the Paris climate agreement and a shift in funding away from NASA Earth studies science.

The foxes are know running the hen house.
Click to expand...

OR

They're just revamping the website because a new President is now in office.
 
Russell797 said:
All references to climate change have been removed from Whitehouse.gov.

Next to come will be the demolition of the EPA, removal of our participation in the Paris climate agreement and a shift in funding away from NASA Earth studies science.

The foxes are know running the hen house.
Click to expand...

Or, the hens have retaken control of the hen house. :wink2:
 
Josie said:
OR

They're just revamping the website because a new President is now in office.
Click to expand...

They are doing exactly what they said they were going to do. That's why government scientists have been hastily backing up decades of research on government servers to off site safe keeping so that as little as possible is lost to this censoring of science. The fear is that the anti-science Republicans and the Trump administration will attempt to eradicate and purge the government of science they don't agree with.

These people are no friends of science. What is happening is a tragedy.
 
Last edited:
Russell797 said:
All references to climate change have been removed from Whitehouse.gov.

Next to come will be the demolition of the EPA, removal of our participation in the Paris climate agreement and a shift in funding away from NASA Earth studies science.

The foxes are now running the hen house.
Click to expand...

The entire Obama White House page has been archived and a new White House site started. They do this every time there's a new administration.
 
Russell797 said:
All references to climate change have been removed from Whitehouse.gov.

Next to come will be the demolition of the EPA, removal of our participation in the Paris climate agreement and a shift in funding away from NASA Earth studies science.

The foxes are now running the hen house.
Click to expand...

Russell797 said:
They are doing exactly what they said they were going to do. That's why government scientists have been hastily backing up decades of research on government servers to off site safe keeping so that as little as possible is lost to this censoring of science. The fear is that the anti-science Republicans and the Trump administration will attempt to eradicate and purge the government of science they don't agree with.

These people are no friends of science. What is happening is a tragedy.
Click to expand...

The latest climate ‘conspiracy theory’

Posted on December 15, 2016 | 464 comments
by Judith Curry
Guess who the new climate ‘conspiracy theorists’ are?
Continue reading →

JC reflections
The definition of ‘conspiracy theory’:
A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy without warrant, generally one involving an illegal or harmful act carried out by government or other powerful actors.
‘Without warrant’ is key here; there is simply no evidence to support the crazy ideas and fears about the Trump administration’s policy about climate science — simply, because he apparently hasn’t even started thinking about it yet, including appointments for the Undersecretary of NOAA, the Administrator of NASA, etc. Zurbechan’s statement is exactly correct: “behave like scientists,” and wait for evidence of what the new administration wants to do.
JC message to the alarmed scientist/advocates:
Get over it, your side lost. Changes of Presidential administrations occur every 4 or 8 years, often with changes in political parties.
Get busy and shore up your scientific arguments; I suspect that argument from consensus won’t sway many minds in the Trump administration.
Overt activism and climate policy advocacy by climate scientists will not help your ’cause’; leave such advocacy to the environmental groups.
Behave like a scientist, and don’t build elaborate conspiracy theories based on vague conflicting signals from the Trump administration. Stop embarrassing yourselves; wait for the evidence.
Be flexible; if funding priorities change, and you desire federal research funding, work on different problems. The days of needing to sell all research in terms of AGW are arguably over.
Open your minds to different perspectives and interpretations of scientific evidence.
If you are advocating for policies, do some serious homework about the policy process, economics, and unintended consequences of technologies and policies.
Understand that climate policies are not the only, or even primary, driver for energy policy.


 
Trump, Brexit and Climate Change: Silencing ‘The Mob’

Posted on 20 Jan 17 by DWESTONFRONT • 22 Comments
The floodgates are open. The tears are flowing out. Reality floods back in. For the regressive elements who have captured many of the institutions across the West, including academia and the media, their walled garden has been breached. The depth charge of the Brexit vote shook and cracked the foundations. An all-out assault followed. … Continue reading →

The floodgates are open. The tears are flowing out. Reality floods back in. For the regressive elements who have captured many of the institutions across the West, including academia and the media, their walled garden has been breached. The depth charge of the Brexit vote shook and cracked the foundations. An all-out assault followed. The Trump win, in a daring dawn raid, smashed it to pieces. The safe-space is gone and now, as many of them claim, the planet’s climate will follow it into the abyss as they lose their wretched grip of fear on the hearts and minds of the populace.
Hysteria abounds. From the very people who claim to be the guardians of science and the paragons of reason. Yet these people are not reasonable. They cannot be. They have forgotten how to be rational because they think they own reason. For them it is a state of being. They – the Chosen – speak. We – the Mob – listen. If that natural order is broken, they must find ways to shut our mouths. And quickly. Let me explain….



 
Russell797 said:
All references to climate change have been removed from Whitehouse.gov.

Next to come will be the demolition of the EPA, removal of our participation in the Paris climate agreement and a shift in funding away from NASA Earth studies science.

The foxes are now running the hen house.
Click to expand...
Whats wonderful about Trump is that no other republican president would ever have the balls to do this sort of thing. The single greatest threat to mankind is the Marxist left and their use of climate change to advance their agenda. Trump may single handedly set their cause back a decade if he doesn't drive a stake in the heart of the blood sucking vampire altogether.
 
Fletch said:
Whats wonderful about Trump is that no other republican president would ever have the balls to do this sort of thing. The single greatest threat to mankind is the Marxist left and their use of climate change to advance their agenda. Trump may single handedly set their cause back a decade if he doesn't drive a stake in the heart of the blood sucking vampire altogether.
Click to expand...

Nope, the greatest threat to mankind is currently Trump.

Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide

Burning all fossil fuels, we conclude, would make most of the planet uninhabitable by humans, thus calling into question strategies that emphasize adaptation to climate change.
Click to expand...

It seems implausible that humanity will not alter its energy course as consequences of burning all fossil fuels become clearer. Yet strong evidence about the dangers of human-made climate change have so far had little effect. Whether governments continue to be so foolhardy as to allow or encourage development of all fossil fuels may determine the fate of humanity.
Click to expand...
 
Surface Detail said:
Nope, the greatest threat to mankind is currently Trump.

Climate sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide
Click to expand...


[h=1]A new lower estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity[/h]Steve McIntyre calls attention to a new paper by J. Ray Bates of the Meteorology and Climate Centre, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University College Dublin, Ireland in a journal called Earth and Space Science. The paper says that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) could be as low as 1°C. Here’s the abstract. Estimating Climate Sensitivity Using Two-zone Energy Balance Models Estimates of…
 
Russell797 said:
They are doing exactly what they said they were going to do. That's why government scientists have been hastily backing up decades of research on government servers to off site safe keeping so that as little as possible is lost to this censoring of science. The fear is that the anti-science Republicans and the Trump administration will attempt to eradicate and purge the government of science they don't agree with.

These people are no friends of science. What is happening is a tragedy.
Click to expand...
Where have you been? Cuts "from 2010 to 2013 resulted in the largest overall decrease in a three-year period since the end of the space race. Seen from a longer perspective, federal spending on R&D as a share of the gross domestic product has been in a long, slow slide from the 1970s, when it peaked above 2 percent. The AAAS puts the fiscal year 2014 figure at 0.78 percent."
The slide has been going on for awhile. Seems to have accelerated under the Obama Administration. Perhaps the price of spending on social programs at the expense of programs that help the general good in more hidden ways. People generally don't vote for science spending but vote for free birth control and such.
The Danger of Cutting Federal Science Funding | The Huffington Post
 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]A new lower estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity[/h]Steve McIntyre calls attention to a new paper by J. Ray Bates of the Meteorology and Climate Centre, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University College Dublin, Ireland in a journal called Earth and Space Science. The paper says that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) could be as low as 1°C. Here’s the abstract. Estimating Climate Sensitivity Using Two-zone Energy Balance Models Estimates of…
Click to expand...

Given that the Earth’s temperature has already increased by about 1°C without yet doubling the CO2 concentration, it's hard to see how this model could possibly be correct. Any thoughts?
 
Surface Detail said:
Given that the Earth’s temperature has already increased by about 1°C without yet doubling the CO2 concentration, it's hard to see how this model could possibly be correct. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

There's lots to go around.

[h=1]New paper finds transient climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is about 1°C[/h]A new paper published in Ecological Modelling finds climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 concentrations is significantly lower than estimates from the IPCC and climate models which “utilize uncertain historical data and make various assumptions about forcings.” The author instead uses a ‘minimal model’ with the fewest possible assumptions and least data uncertainty to derive a…

July 23, 2014 in Climate News, Climate sensitivity.[h=1]New paper on climate sensitivity estimates 1.1 ± 0.4 °C for a doubling of CO2[/h]This new paper (in review at the discussions section) at Climate of the Past has some interesting approaches using Oxygen 18 isotope records from benthic foraminiferas acquired in Deep Sea Drilling project (DSDP) on the Kerguelen Plateau off the coast of Antarctica and in the Cape Basin off the coast of Namibia. These drill holes…

October 5, 2012 in Climate sensitivity.[h=1]New paper claims a value one seventh of the IPCC best estimate for Climate Sensitivity for a CO2 doubling[/h]Paul Ostergaard writes via email: Here is an interesting new paper that Miklos Zagoni has pointed me to via Judith Curry’s blog. This researcher in Germany has carried out a spectroscopic analysis of the impact of CO2 and other greenhouse gases’ contribution to warming. It arrives (surprise!) at a value one seventh of the IPCC…


 
Jack Hays said:
[h=1]A new lower estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity[/h]Steve McIntyre calls attention to a new paper by J. Ray Bates of the Meteorology and Climate Centre, School of Mathematics and Statistics, University College Dublin, Ireland in a journal called Earth and Space Science. The paper says that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) could be as low as 1°C. Here’s the abstract. Estimating Climate Sensitivity Using Two-zone Energy Balance Models Estimates of…
Click to expand...

Could be as low as 1C in the same sense that it could be as high as 5C
 
Russell797 said:
All references to climate change have been removed from Whitehouse.gov.

Next to come will be the demolition of the EPA, removal of our participation in the Paris climate agreement and a shift in funding away from NASA Earth studies science.

The foxes are now running the hen house.
Click to expand...

It's about time.

Science should not be politicized.
 
Surface Detail said:
Given that the Earth’s temperature has already increased by about 1°C without yet doubling the CO2 concentration, it's hard to see how this model could possibly be correct. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Yes. The point from which you are measuring is about 1850. That was a particularly cold moment.

There are more factors in play than CO2 alone.
 
Russell797 said:
All references to climate change have been removed from Whitehouse.gov.

Next to come will be the demolition of the EPA, removal of our participation in the Paris climate agreement and a shift in funding away from NASA Earth studies science.

The foxes are now running the hen house.
Click to expand...

Move closer to Canada you will enjoy the warmer weather ! :lol:
 
azgreg said:
The entire Obama White House page has been archived and a new White House site started. They do this every time there's a new administration.
Click to expand...

Yes, and no mention of climate change. What was a national imperative only a few days ago now has vanished into thin air.
 
Fletch said:
Yes, yes, the sky is falling. Please lay out the details of the plan that would end the threat of global warming for me.


Cue the crickets....
Click to expand...

That's simple and you wouldn't even be asking such a question if you were paying attention. The Paris agreement which has been signed by nearly 200 nations sets the world on the track toward reducing greenhouse gas pollution. Trump and the Republicans will withdraw the U.S. from the agreement, and will attempt to ramp up the production of greenhouse gas producing fuels. To hell with the environment. Protecting those industries is what is important to them.
 
Eric7216 said:
Where have you been? Cuts "from 2010 to 2013 resulted in the largest overall decrease in a three-year period since the end of the space race. Seen from a longer perspective, federal spending on R&D as a share of the gross domestic product has been in a long, slow slide from the 1970s, when it peaked above 2 percent. The AAAS puts the fiscal year 2014 figure at 0.78 percent."
The slide has been going on for awhile. Seems to have accelerated under the Obama Administration. Perhaps the price of spending on social programs at the expense of programs that help the general good in more hidden ways. People generally don't vote for science spending but vote for free birth control and such.
The Danger of Cutting Federal Science Funding | The Huffington Post
Click to expand...

The Republicans are targeting all science which touches on the issue of a warming planet. Specifically, the Earth Science monitoring satellite program is coming under attack. This has nothing to do with NASA's overall budget. It's the purging of all things global warming related from government science because they don't 'believe' in it. To them it's just a waste of money.
 
Russell797 said:
They are doing exactly what they said they were going to do. That's why government scientists have been hastily backing up decades of research on government servers to off site safe keeping so that as little as possible is lost to this censoring of science. The fear is that the anti-science Republicans and the Trump administration will attempt to eradicate and purge the government of science they don't agree with.

These people are no friends of science. What is happening is a tragedy.
Click to expand...

while the signs are trending inthat direction

but he was only sworn in two days ago

a bit early to come to such definite conclusions
 
Surface Detail said:
Given that the Earth’s temperature has already increased by about 1°C without yet doubling the CO2 concentration, it's hard to see how this model could possibly be correct. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

Jack is a long time purveyor of global warming denialism. He's very good at cluttering up a thread. I don't even read his stuff any more. He relies on the whos who of climate change denial over that of institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences for his material.
 
Jack Hays said:
My point was simply that the doomsday outlook in #9 ain't necessarily so.
Click to expand...

Nothing is "necessarily so" in this assessment. There is a range of probability which you seem willing to disregard.

I use geological evidence as my guide. 125,000 years ago the temperature was similar to today with peaks 1C warmer than today. The oceans were also 18 to 30 feet higher than today. Now it may take a few thousand years to get fully there, but the rise to 18 feet will be relentless. It didn't have to be, because natural variability was not heading in that direction, but it is what it is and we would be wise to reduce the outcome. But of course this science could be totally out to lunch...right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom