4 ms·

Maybe I read too much into what you wrote, but it seems that you have high confidence that the EPA will emerge a better agency from this. If so, I'm curious why

by afpx 9y ago

Maybe I read too much into what you wrote, but it seems that you have high confidence that the EPA will emerge a better agency from this. If so, I'm curious why given Trump's and Pruitt's negativity toward science, the environment, regulation, and the EPA. What's your angle?

supremesaboteur 9y ago
I usually have high confidence that scientists will do their jobs. If a Republican controlled EPA confirms the catastrophic effects of climate change, you would expect more bipartisan support to tackle the problem. As far as I can tell, conservative viewpoint on climate change is varied, from 'the effects of man made climate change will be mild and not catastrophic' to 'golabal warming is caused by increased solar activity' The point I was making was that there is no reason to stir up hysteria just because you heard the words 'Republican' and 'EPA' in the same sentence
- ricardobeat 9y ago
  Or in short, "I'm hoping for the best".
- jonathansizz 9y ago
  > As far as I can tell, conservative viewpoint on climate change is varied, from 'the effects of man made climate change will be mild and not catastrophic' to 'golabal warming is caused by increased solar activity' Unfortunately, that range lies outside what mainstream climate science has been telling us for decades.
- afpx 9y ago
  Your confidence in this administration's eagerness to fund scientific research is ... well, surprising. To me, at least. But, are you confident enough in their willingness to continue unbiased scientific research into climate change that you would bet money on it? I am very interested in a friendly (but financially significant) wager now. :)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dwaltrip 9y ago
  It's not solar activity. That has been debunked for a long time. https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-glo...
- defined 9y ago
  We'll probably still be debating this as we row to work one day.

by afpx 9y ago

supremesaboteur 9y ago

I usually have high confidence that scientists will do their jobs. If a Republican controlled EPA confirms the catastrophic effects of climate change, you would expect more bipartisan support to tackle the problem. As far as I can tell, conservative viewpoint on climate change is varied, from 'the effects of man made climate change will be mild and not catastrophic' to 'golabal warming is caused by increased solar activity' The point I was making was that there is no reason to stir up hysteria just because you heard the words 'Republican' and 'EPA' in the same sentence

ricardobeat 9y ago
Or in short, "I'm hoping for the best".
jonathansizz 9y ago
> As far as I can tell, conservative viewpoint on climate change is varied, from 'the effects of man made climate change will be mild and not catastrophic' to 'golabal warming is caused by increased solar activity' Unfortunately, that range lies outside what mainstream climate science has been telling us for decades.
afpx 9y ago
Your confidence in this administration's eagerness to fund scientific research is ... well, surprising. To me, at least. But, are you confident enough in their willingness to continue unbiased scientific research into climate change that you would bet money on it? I am very interested in a friendly (but financially significant) wager now. :)
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dwaltrip 9y ago
It's not solar activity. That has been debunked for a long time. https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-glo...
defined 9y ago
We'll probably still be debating this as we row to work one day.