4 ms·

> We who are not trolling do not deny the data. The data are clear, there is a general warming trend so far. And it's most likely primarily caused by human acti

> We who are not trolling do not deny the data. The data are clear, there is a general warming trend so far. And it's most likely primarily caused by human action. But there's a problem. For one, that's false: there're plenty of people denying the data, and there're plenty of people denying that humans are the primary contributors to it. These aren't nutballs shrieking on street corners, but nutballs who currently run our government (Trump). So acting like the public debate is between well meaning people who disagree about model validation is not reflective of reality. For two, if you believe the issue is with needing to do more research, shouldn't we be, you know, funding more research? Why is Trump cancelling NASA's Carbon Monitoring System [0]? Why are Republicans in North Carolina banning the use of models of sea level rise that try to take into account climate change[1]? Why is the administration issuing gag orders preventing scientists from communicating about peer reviewed research[2]? Why does the budget cut climate change research generally [3]? There are countless examples of this, and it's very difficult to take the people who say "we need more research!" seriously when they support and vote for a party that's hellbent on preventing any new research from taking place. [0] https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/trump-white-house-quietly-cancels-nasa-research-verifying-greenhouse-gas-cuts https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/trump-white-house-qu... [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-northcarolina/north-carolina-lawmakers-reject-sea-level-rise-predictions-idUSBRE86217I20120703 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-northcarolina/north-c... [2] https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/24/14372940/trump-gag-order-epa-environmental-protection-agency-health-agriculture https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/24/14372940/trump-gag-order-... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-energy-202/2019/03/12/the-energy-202-trump-s-budget-seeks-cuts-to-climate-research-and-renewable-energy-programs/5c869eca1b326b2d177d604d/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/the-ene...

squirrelicus 7y ago
[0] did you.. did you even the bipartisan followup? https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/nasa-climate-science-program-trump-axed-house-lawmakers-just-moved-restore-it https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/nasa-climate-science... [1] is exactly my contention [2] not really relevant. That order was highly specific and targeted to policy statements that could be confused with administration policy. I may not agree with it, but it's really really edge case. [3] cut is a really fun word. 31% reduction to 6 billion. Not the disaster you're looking for. Also WaPo, not exactly non partisan. And the left has everything to gain from lying or dishonestly framing to get back in power.
- scarmig 7y ago
  So, your defenses are that Trump only tried to do it, and failed; that it's totally insane to predict sea level rise based on models that account for climate change, but totally accurate to use models that don't account for it; "it's just a single example!"; and a multibillion dollar cut doesn't matter, even though you yourself were saying we need more research, not less. >the left has everything to gain from lying or dishonestly framing to get back in power Looney tunes.
  - squirrelicus 7y ago
    I may have voted for Trump, and I probably will again, and I may bear my share of responsibility for his blunders, but I don't agree with many things he does. He was probably wrong that time. Other presidents do horrible things, like when Obama didn't challenge the family separation rule on the border, gave Libya to ISIS, waited too long in Iraq, or presided over Fast and Furious. And I still voted for him twice. No, the contention of [1] is that they wanted to influence the real estate market based on an unvalidated fringe model that predicted more extreme sea level rises than the majority of the other models. [3] is interesting because I'm not sure how much money should be pumped into climate research, and neither is anyone else. There's a point between 0% and 100% where it becomes a net drain on the world. Who knows where that is. But single digit billions of government funds plus all the University endowments feels reasonable. I could probably be convinced it should be double digit billions. But nobody knows the right answer. And research isn't stopping by any stretch. WRT Looney Tunes, i said the same thing about Republicans in 2009. shrug that's politics. You win by changing opinions, not saying true things.

squirrelicus 7y ago

[0] did you.. did you even the bipartisan followup? https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/nasa-climate-science-program-trump-axed-house-lawmakers-just-moved-restore-it https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/nasa-climate-science... [1] is exactly my contention [2] not really relevant. That order was highly specific and targeted to policy statements that could be confused with administration policy. I may not agree with it, but it's really really edge case. [3] cut is a really fun word. 31% reduction to 6 billion. Not the disaster you're looking for. Also WaPo, not exactly non partisan. And the left has everything to gain from lying or dishonestly framing to get back in power.

scarmig 7y ago
So, your defenses are that Trump only tried to do it, and failed; that it's totally insane to predict sea level rise based on models that account for climate change, but totally accurate to use models that don't account for it; "it's just a single example!"; and a multibillion dollar cut doesn't matter, even though you yourself were saying we need more research, not less. >the left has everything to gain from lying or dishonestly framing to get back in power Looney tunes.
- squirrelicus 7y ago
  I may have voted for Trump, and I probably will again, and I may bear my share of responsibility for his blunders, but I don't agree with many things he does. He was probably wrong that time. Other presidents do horrible things, like when Obama didn't challenge the family separation rule on the border, gave Libya to ISIS, waited too long in Iraq, or presided over Fast and Furious. And I still voted for him twice. No, the contention of [1] is that they wanted to influence the real estate market based on an unvalidated fringe model that predicted more extreme sea level rises than the majority of the other models. [3] is interesting because I'm not sure how much money should be pumped into climate research, and neither is anyone else. There's a point between 0% and 100% where it becomes a net drain on the world. Who knows where that is. But single digit billions of government funds plus all the University endowments feels reasonable. I could probably be convinced it should be double digit billions. But nobody knows the right answer. And research isn't stopping by any stretch. WRT Looney Tunes, i said the same thing about Republicans in 2009. shrug that's politics. You win by changing opinions, not saying true things.