BigRedBuster Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 6 minutes ago, schriznoeder said: I couldn't agree more. I'm grateful that Obama brought in several accomplished scientists as part of his administration (Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, Senior Advisor John Holdren, etc.), but those people don't create legislation. We need more science-y people writing the laws. Well.....we need more scientists giving in put and lawyers listening to them who actually write the bills. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted January 30, 2019 Author Share Posted January 30, 2019 10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Well.....we need more scientists giving in put and lawyers listening to them who actually write the bills. But that clearly isn’t happening. I think people in general think they’re smart. But lawyers especially. We have dozens of them in congress who think they understand science better than scientists. We have members of the Supreme Court who ignore what statisticians and mathemeticians tell them about fixing gerrymandering because they don’t understand either topic. We need people self aware enough to know what they don’t know. We have a bunch of idiots with big egos, or people who are smart and one thing which makes them think they know everything. 2 Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Well.....we need more scientists giving in put and lawyers listening to them who actually write the bills. Fair enough. I'll take whatever I can't get at this point. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 1 minute ago, Moiraine said: But that clearly isn’t happening. I think people in general think they’re smart. But lawyers especially. We have dozens of them in congress who think they understand science better than scientists. We have members of the Supreme Court who ignore what statisticians and mathemeticians tell them about fixing gerrymandering because they don’t understand either topic. We need people self aware enough to know what they don’t know. We have a bunch of idiots with big egos. Scientists know science and lawyers know law. You aren't going to have good environmental laws without both involved doing their part. Just because it's not working right now, doesn't negate the need for both. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted January 30, 2019 Author Share Posted January 30, 2019 13 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said: Scientists know science and lawyers know law. You aren't going to have good environmental laws without both involved doing their part. Just because it's not working right now, doesn't negate the need for both. What I’m saying is congress isn’t listening to scientists. The GOP has taken actions to reduce their input. I’m not saying we don’t need experts in policy writing. But if a lawyer ignores scientists on climate change and comes to the complete opposite conclusion, they have no business being in a position to create policy that relates to it. 1 Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted January 30, 2019 Share Posted January 30, 2019 This fine individual also sponsored their stand your ground law and defends confederate statues. Oy. In what sense are climate change or evolution considered controversial? I get that some believe in creationism and want to ignore our role in climate change but this is just dense. 1 Link to comment
jsneb83 Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 3 hours ago, Clifford Franklin said: This fine individual also sponsored their stand your ground law and defends confederate statues. Oy. In what sense are climate change or evolution considered controversial? I get that some believe in creationism and want to ignore our role in climate change but this is just dense. Well, I would hope facts are uniform, ya dumbass 4 Link to comment
Moiraine Posted February 4, 2019 Author Share Posted February 4, 2019 I think this stuff is what upsets me the most about Trump’s presidency, and it will probably have lasting damage. Quote The report exposes a rampant practice of corporate favor and influence in government policies at multiple federal agencies, whether involving conflicts of interest, suppression of scientific studies, interfering with scientific input from outside experts, or efforts to roll back environmental and public health regulations, rules, and standards. Some examples include the rollback of the Clean Car standards and methane standards to benefit the auto and oil and gas industries, the suppression of an important report on the cancer risks of formaldehyde to benefit the chemical industry, and attempts to roll back regulations on coal mine dust to favor the mining industry even though scientific research makes clear exposure to such dust can lead to black lung disease. Quote A culture of scientific censorship has taken hold at agencies across the administration, whether it be restricting scientists’ ability to speak to the media about their research, or outright banning of certain kinds of speech, or even words. Last June, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a ban on the words “vulnerable,” “transgender,” “evidence-based,” and “science-based” in budgetary reports. The Department of Energy prevented climate scientists from using “emissions reductions” or “Paris Agreement” in communications. Former interior secretary Ryan Zinke even called in Joshua Tree National Park superintendent David Smith to reprimand him in person for a Twitter thread about climate change on the park’s official Twitter account. Above are the # of appointed/vacant science positions in the first 2 years of the administration. https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/trump-administration-s-science-shutdown-endangers-public-health?fbclid=IwAR0h3z7pQFCj9Gyp1u0C5oPmhFJ0kWy5LOFOOOOBq6gxYlw1LyvK9i8b_kA 2 1 Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted February 11, 2019 Share Posted February 11, 2019 Dan Rather is seriously upping his Twitter burn game... Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted February 13, 2019 Share Posted February 13, 2019 When I plugged Lincoln into the interactive map... "For high emissions, Lincoln's climate in 2080 will feel most like today's climate near Ponca City, Oklahoma. The typical summer in Ponca City, Oklahoma is 6.4°F (3.5°C) warmer and 9.4% drier than summer in Lincoln." I think I prefer having the option of moving to a warmer climate, rather than the warmer climate moving to me. Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 hey Schriz- that article talks in circles...I get what the premise was but when you read it, and look at the diagram, it describes...at least what appears to me... to be the exact opposite of what they are insinuating. Link to comment
schriznoeder Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 6 hours ago, DevoHusker said: hey Schriz- that article talks in circles...I get what the premise was but when you read it, and look at the diagram, it describes...at least what appears to me... to be the exact opposite of what they are insinuating. Yeah, I agree the article is a bit confusing. But honestly, I was more interested in the interactive map. At least it used terms I could understand Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 5 hours ago, schriznoeder said: Yeah, I agree the article is a bit confusing. But honestly, I was more interested in the interactive map. At least it used terms I could understand Yeah, they really muffed up the explanation. I think what they meant to say was: If you live in a city, chances are you'll have to drive approximately ~500 miles southward to find out what your city is going to feel like in 2080. 1 Link to comment
DevoHusker Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 yes, Cliff....that's what I took as their intended message as well 1 Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 This will be interesting to watch. If the the third paragraph is true,why does big oil care so much? Link to comment
Recommended Posts