• 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!

The Science is out

WCH said:
Other than taking this idiotic title seriously, if this report recommends actions that are detrimental to the America economy or America in general, it will likely be ignored.
Click to expand...

By what standard would the health of the US economy take precedence over the health of the Planet Earth? That would be the Republican/Corporate standard. Screw the inhabitants of the Planet to enjoy the profits.
/
 
WCH said:
Other than taking this idiotic title seriously, if this report recommends actions that are detrimental to the America economy or America in general, it will likely be ignored.
Click to expand...

By what standard would the health of the US economy take precedence over the health of the Planet Earth? That would be the Republican/Corporate standard. Screw the inhabitants of the Planet to enjoy the profits. America First.
/
 
nota bene said:
I've already wasted a few WaPo and NY Times free articles already this month--could you please summarize what this NY Times article says? And what do you think Trump will do?
Click to expand...

Basically, scientists from 13 government agencies have compiled the US Quadrennial Climate Review which totally disagrees with Trumps personal views on climate and climate change.

The fear is that the Trump administration will attempt to bury or dilute the report. On another note, USDA mgrs are telling employees to not use the term 'climate change' in any official documents or communications.

USDA office told to use ‘weather extremes’ instead of 'climate change'
 
nota bene said:
I've already wasted a few WaPo and NY Times free articles already this month--could you please summarize what this NY Times article says? And what do you think Trump will do?
Click to expand...


the piece is an opinion piece. The report was released without wh input over fears the WH would doctor it. Summarize the article for you? I dont think so. The report is the sort of thing that draws a line between the science and anti science people.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Basically, scientists from 13 government agencies have compiled the US Quadrennial Climate Review which totally disagrees with Trumps personal views on climate and climate change.

The fear is that the Trump administration will attempt to bury or dilute the report. On another note, USDA mgrs are telling employees to not use the term 'climate change' in any official documents or communications.

USDA office told to use ‘weather extremes’ instead of 'climate change'
Click to expand...


you are enabling
 
Rogue Valley said:
Basically, scientists from 13 government agencies have compiled the US Quadrennial Climate Review which totally disagrees with Trumps personal views on climate and climate change.

The fear is that the Trump administration will attempt to bury or dilute the report. On another note, USDA mgrs are telling employees to not use the term 'climate change' in any official documents or communications.

USDA office told to use ‘weather extremes’ instead of 'climate change'
Click to expand...

Because that is a more accurate description of what they are studying.
If they were actually studying climate change their reports would focus more on historical climate and compare that to now.

They wouldn't smooth the data to show constant increases.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

How is this science again?
Then you wonder why we don't trust them or what thy say.
 
nota bene said:
I've already wasted a few WaPo and NY Times free articles already this month--could you please summarize what this NY Times article says? And what do you think Trump will do?
Click to expand...

It's an article about a paper drafted in Dec 2016 that's going through the normal review process that will give recommendations soon. Trump will likely dismiss it as it was all ginned up prior to his taking office.
 
DaveFagan said:
By what standard would the health of the US economy take precedence over the health of the Planet Earth? That would be the Republican/Corporate standard. Screw the inhabitants of the Planet to enjoy the profits.
/
Click to expand...

I didn't say it would but, Trump has repeatedly said that would be the case.

Guessing you buy into the rhetoric?
 
DaveFagan said:
By what standard would the health of the US economy take precedence over the health of the Planet Earth? That would be the Republican/Corporate standard. Screw the inhabitants of the Planet to enjoy the profits. America First.
/
Click to expand...

Until at least a few of the predictions generated by the models or Algores books actually happen, I'd say my standards.

The health of the US economy is very important to most US citizens.
 
nota bene said:
I've already wasted a few WaPo and NY Times free articles already this month--could you please summarize what this NY Times article says? And what do you think Trump will do?
Click to expand...

I used to pay for those papers, but am not any longer interested in supporting them as too much is biased and opinionating. Cannot trust the news sectiin anymore.
 
DaveFagan said:
By what standard would the health of the US economy take precedence over the health of the Planet Earth? That would be the Republican/Corporate standard. Screw the inhabitants of the Planet to enjoy the profits.
/
Click to expand...

Everyone wants to ride the train that heals the planet. Everyone wants to be on the "right" side of history.

Scientific consensus, however, has a long track of dabbling in dubious "causes."

Don't forget that it was the scientific consensus of the day that determined the way to help the people of Planet Earth the most was to implement forced eugenics, and thousands who were less desirable were sterilized.
 
katzgar said:
the piece is an opinion piece. The report was released without wh input over fears the WH would doctor it. Summarize the article for you? I dont think so. The report is the sort of thing that draws a line between the science and anti science people.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you would begrudge others the summary. Perhaps you didn't really read it yourself. Sorry, but "Will Trump pick between science or the deplorables" isn't exactly a helpful or useful OP.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Basically, scientists from 13 government agencies have compiled the US Quadrennial Climate Review which totally disagrees with Trumps personal views on climate and climate change.

The fear is that the Trump administration will attempt to bury or dilute the report. On another note, USDA mgrs are telling employees to not use the term 'climate change' in any official documents or communications.

USDA office told to use ‘weather extremes’ instead of 'climate change'
Click to expand...

Thank you. I appreciate this very much. I really do have to "save up" the free reads--not for my own reading pleasure, you know--and it's only the 9th.
 
nota bene said:
Not sure why you would begrudge others the summary. Perhaps you didn't really read it yourself. Sorry, but "Will Trump pick between science or the deplorables" isn't exactly a helpful or useful OP.
Click to expand...


trying to demonize me because you wont do your own homework is very tacky
 
WCH said:
I didn't say it would but, Trump has repeatedly said that would be the case.

Guessing you buy into the rhetoric?
Click to expand...

Two boiler repairmen come to your home. One says your boiler will explode destroying your home and family if you don't replace it. The other repairman says your boiler is fine.

What would you do?

A. Listen to the repairman who says everything is fine.
B. Replace the boiler just in case.

It's the same with climate change. You may not know which scientists to believe but it's best to err on the side of caution. What's the harm in cleaning up our act? We can have clean air and create jobs in the green industry at the same time.
 
katzgar said:
trying to demonize me because you wont do your own homework is very tacky
Click to expand...

I wouldn't even try to imp you, much less demonize you. It's fair, however, to expect somebody to provide a halfway decent OP. "Will Trump pick between science or the deplorables" isn't exactly a thoughtful effort.

And I guess you've never considered the possibility that I click on many more WaPo and NY Times links than you do during any given week here at DP. It's not a question of my not doing my "homework"; the issue is being unable to access an article later this month when there is a need to do so. :doh
 
nota bene said:
I wouldn't even try to imp you, much less demonize you. It's fair, however, to expect somebody to provide a halfway decent OP. "Will Trump pick between science or the deplorables" isn't exactly a thoughtful effort.

And I guess you've never considered the possibility that I click on many more WaPo and NY Times links than you do during any given week here at DP. It's not a question of my not doing my "homework"; the issue is being unable to access an article later this month when there is a need to do so. :doh
Click to expand...

And yet you could have just passed over it
 
HowardBThiname said:
Everyone wants to ride the train that heals the planet. Everyone wants to be on the "right" side of history.

Scientific consensus, however, has a long track of dabbling in dubious "causes."
Click to expand...
It also has a significantly longer track record of being right.

It is beyond absurd to say that "some scientists (and a lot of non-scientists) believed in eugenics, therefore climate change is wrong!!!" Even on a basic logical level, that is an abject failure, and an desperate partisan attack on the conclusions of climate science.
 
Visbek said:
It also has a significantly longer track record of being right.

It is beyond absurd to say that "some scientists (and a lot of non-scientists) believed in eugenics, therefore climate change is wrong!!!" Even on a basic logical level, that is an abject failure, and an desperate partisan attack on the conclusions of climate science.
Click to expand...

You obviously have not studied the history of how the scientific community at large got behind the eugenics movement. The vast majority sang its praises and followed along like lemmings. It wasn't until human rights advocates began to push back against the Jeckle/Hyde science movement that began to revise their theories.

The scientific community today is not too far removed from the scientific community of Galileo's day -- you know -- the community that threatened to jail or kill him for daring to say that the scientific consensus of the day was off-base.

When you insist that science of any sort is "settled," you become anti-science, yourself. LOL
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Two boiler repairmen come to your home. One says your boiler will explode destroying your home and family if you don't replace it. The other repairman says your boiler is fine.

What would you do?

A. Listen to the repairman who says everything is fine.
B. Replace the boiler just in case.

It's the same with climate change. You may not know which scientists to believe but it's best to err on the side of caution. What's the harm in cleaning up our act? We can have clean air and create jobs in the green industry at the same time.
Click to expand...

IMO, it's not science's job to "err" to either side. That's why they've lost the trust of so many people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom