Climate policy continues to change

[OldJourno]

So maybe it's not settled after all, even though 99.9 percent of scientists say we're all going to die unless we pay a whole lot more for electricity
Maybe under Trump I can use my air conditioner this summer

Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold

By James Varney, RealClearInvestigations
December 31, 2016
In the world of climate science, the skeptics are coming in from the cold.
Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach – and the billions of federal dollars that might support it – could be in the offing.
“Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular Climate Etc. blog.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Mango Mussolini's incoming anti-intellectual administration should prove to be quite a bonanza for climate denial crackpots, who see a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to gorge at the federal trough and gain government imprimatur for their whack-a-doodle theories.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Don't bet on it.



He's still a Progressive....

 

[OldJourno]

If the government stops raining dollars on scientists in the bag for global warming, is that climate or merely weather?

 

[renard_ruse]

Are you leaving tomorrow with Rory?

 

[JinSun]

Though I fully believe in climate change and other environmental problems, I'd like to point out how idiotic it is to say 99.99% of scientists do anything.

Science is not democratic.

Once upon a time the known world believed the world was flat. Once upon a time the world believed we were the center of the universe. You set a dangerous precedent when you allow science to become majority rules. It becomes that much easier to control the narrative.

 

[phrodeau]

If the government stops raining dollars on scientists in the bag for global warming, is that climate or merely weather?

If the US government stops funding science and the rest of the world continues the research, does that put the US at an advantage for saving all that money?

 

[yukonnights]

So maybe it's not settled after all, even though 99.9 percent of scientists say we're all going to die unless we pay a whole lot more for electricity
Maybe under Trump I can use my air conditioner this summer

Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold

By James Varney, RealClearInvestigations
December 31, 2016
In the world of climate science, the skeptics are coming in from the cold.
Researchers who see global warming as something less than a planet-ending calamity believe the incoming Trump administration may allow their views to be developed and heard. This didn’t happen under the Obama administration, which denied that a debate even existed. Now, some scientists say, a more inclusive approach – and the billions of federal dollars that might support it – could be in the offing.
“Here’s to hoping the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma, and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives in climate science and our policy options,” Georgia Tech scientist Judith Curry wrote this month at her popular Climate Etc. blog.

Wow! Here's an old guy who say's in his profile he's busy herding grandchildren (and yes, I have no doubt he loves them)...he's also aware that 99.9% of scientist who are in the field of climatology support scientific data showing a dangerous rise in global temperatures...but then goes on to bemoan his true concern; His electric bills might go up!

It's hard to run away from what Trump stands for...abolish the EPA (so corporations can make more $), pump more oil (so corporations can make more $), sell off our Public lands (so corporations can make more $)...like most dictatorships, the main goal is to establish an oligarchy where the select elite (be it royalty, military or wealthy) use power to accumulate wealth.

The witless herd that puts these "kings of the earth" in a position to do this are tempted to abandon the well-being of their children and grandchildren for a few scraps of "cheaper electric bills".

Thankfully, I know many grandfathers and grandmothers who are more concerned with the kind of earth they pass down to future generations. Please don't be duped by short term profits at the expense of the only home we all share.

And by the way; Dr. Curry is not a "denier", she just has some differing views on the attempt to put precise dates and degrees of temperature variabilities we are facing. Another cause she is strong in espousing is that all scientific data should be very transparent in order to maintain full credibility...that's not denial of climate change. In fact, she is on record as supporting the conclusion that global climate change is a reality. If you want to read more, her blog and homepage are easy to find.

This issue is too important to stick our collective heads in the sand and say; Trump knows best...and it'll be biggly wonderful. For the sake of our nation and for the well-being of our grandchildren I just wish we could shelve all this childish drama and really work to make America great again (hint: hating your neighbor isn't the way to do it...nor is leaving behind a polluted planet)

 

[OldJourno]

If the US government stops funding science and the rest of the world continues the research, does that put the US at an advantage for saving all that money?

Sure does, because science doesn't need government to survive.

 

[Sean]

Sure does, because science doesn't need government to survive.

Really? What private entity is going to build the next CERN?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If the US government stops funding science and the rest of the world continues the research, does that put the US at an advantage for saving all that money?

Not only yes, but hell yes...



We throw enough money indirectly to the governmental-college industry that they don't need additional special earmarked funding. They are awash in tax dollars and student loan largess, let them decide which are the most cost/benefit ares of research and if they decide it is saving the world instead of curing childhood cancers, then so be it, let those babies die.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Though I fully believe in climate change and other environmental problems, I'd like to point out how idiotic it is to say 99.99% of scientists do anything.

Science is not democratic.

Once upon a time the known world believed the world was flat.

Not true. http://www.newsweek.com/even-middle-ages-people-didnt-think-earth-was-flat-420775

“With extraordinary few exceptions, no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat,” historian Jeffrey Burton Russell wrote in 1997. “A round Earth appears at least as early as the sixth century B.C. with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere.” By the first century A.D., “the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.”

Once upon a time the world believed we were the center of the universe. You set a dangerous precedent when you allow science to become majority rules. It becomes that much easier to control the narrative.

Also not true. http://www.astronomytrek.com/who-discovered-the-earth-moves-around-the-sun/


"Copernicus (1473-1543) was not the first person to claim that the Earth rotates around the Sun. In Western civilization, ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos is generally credited with being the first person to propose a Sun-centred astronomical hypothesis of the universe (heliocentric). At that time, however, Aristarchus’s heliocentrism gained few supporters and 18 centuries would then pass before Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus produced a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system."

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

So maybe it's not settled after all, even though 99.9 percent of scientists say we're all going to die

I'd love to see you name one who says this.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Good fawkin' Jehovah...



If you can find just one tiny example, then what 99.99% of what everyone else believes was not, in fact, the consensus/truth of the day!



Think about that before you post again Sgt St-st-st-stutter. Start with the OP...

 

[JinSun]

Not true. http://www.newsweek.com/even-middle-ages-people-didnt-think-earth-was-flat-420775

“With extraordinary few exceptions, no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat,” historian Jeffrey Burton Russell wrote in 1997. “A round Earth appears at least as early as the sixth century B.C. with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere.” By the first century A.D., “the sphericity of the earth was accepted by all educated Greeks and Romans.”




Also not true. http://www.astronomytrek.com/who-discovered-the-earth-moves-around-the-sun/


"Copernicus (1473-1543) was not the first person to claim that the Earth rotates around the Sun. In Western civilization, ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos is generally credited with being the first person to propose a Sun-centred astronomical hypothesis of the universe (heliocentric). At that time, however, Aristarchus’s heliocentrism gained few supporters and 18 centuries would then pass before Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus produced a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system."

You understand that I said once upon a time, right? These things are true. People did believe these things. In either case you clearly missed the point.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Good fawkin' Jehovah...



If you can find just one tiny example, then what 99.99% of what everyone else believes was not, in fact, the consensus/truth of the day!



Think about that before you post again Sgt St-st-st-stutter. Start with the OP...

I did start with that, which is why you came in and made a personal attack instead of sticking to the topic.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No, you did not.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No, you did not.

You running away with your tail tucked doesn't change facts.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You understand that I said once upon a time, right? These things are true. People did believe these things. In either case you clearly missed the point.

I'll bite, what's your point?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You're such a hateful idiot...

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You're such a hateful idiot...

I'm not the one resorting to insults to avoid talking about the topic.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You are a liar...



Science is not Democratic.

99.99% is not truth. But you deny that.

 

[JinSun]

I'll bite, what's your point?

I put the text in font size 7 and bold and he still missed it.

You're trolling right?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I put the text in font size 7 and bold and he still missed it.

You're trolling right?

No, partisanship makes him stupid.

He doesn't think, he tries to reiterate the party line...

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

You are a liar...



Science is not Democratic.

99.99% is not truth. But you deny that.

No, I don't. I challenge the OP to show that any climate scientist has said "end times", not a one of them have. Sure, it's possible they were using hyperbole, but I really doubt it.

Climate scientists have warned about droughts, heat waves, & floods. They've also said there may be migrations because food may become scarce in some areas. That's hardly "end of days" stuff.