>Trump transition team for Energy Department seeks names of employees involved in climate meetings
>washingtonpost.com
Is no one else here seriously concerned with this? This is starting to look like a witch hunt on scientists who publish inconvenient findings.
I don't live in the US, but this concerns me nonetheless. We need to become vocal, because this is unacceptable.
I've read about it. I think Trump will have to accept he cannot deny a well stablished scientific fact. If he fires all the scientists that accept global warming, he will end with a Department of Energy made entirely of dumbasses.
>because this is unacceptable.
And what are you going to do about it, Spartacus?
Somewhat reassuring, but Trump isn't exactly the kind of guy who 'accepts' it if he can't have what he wants.
I'm going to welcome US scientists when the inevitable brain drain happens.
...
Bump
>The President elect hasn't got the right to know the names of government employed scientists.
>a well stablished scientific fact.
a harmless, if not beneficial, theory
You obviously didn't read the article in the OP. This isn't just taking stock, this is a list of questions about scientific views of individual people.
Page 1
Looks like he's poised to replace them with some young earthers
Maybe the democrats should have tried harder to win the election if they thought the planet was at stake in Republican hands.
Nah man, it was Hillary's turn to be president. The woman has been in the system for half a century, she has to be elected sooner or later, nevermind what the people seek in a candidate.
Her career is over. Next election she'll be 73/74 and even regardless of that, she lost to Donald Trump. Trump might actually get elected again considering how the democrats are continuing the retardation that caused them to lose this time.
>it's OK to deny scientific evidence
>because Democrats didn't try hard enough
U wot m8
Not saying it's okay but the democrats dropped the ball hard to allow someone who doesn't believe in it to be elected.
That's stating the obvious
Fucking hell
This most likely isn't a traditional witch hunt as much as it is an attempt break down the climate change vanguard for business purposes.
Basically if you're trying to push for more "job creation" in certain sectors the first thing you need to do is dismantle current and future regulations and reduce the creditability of those who vanguard it.
That way they will have a hard time swaying the community in the public, private and government circles.
The problem is oddly enough the biggest obstacle isn't western scientists but China who at this point must enforce environment regulations or watch their own people lose a chunk of their average life span and suffer from respiratory diseases.
>educe the creditability of those who vanguard it.
Sounds like a witch hunt to me
But the key here is that it's not based on moral or social principal so much as it's based on business.
Trump most likely gives zero fucks about the entire environment issue but since it's interfering with future business policy he's willing to setup this inquiry just for the business purposes having zero care about the stakes at play on either side.
>a harmless, if not beneficial, theory
No please, don't start with this denying shit
In my opinion, it doesn't matter whether the motive is ideological or financial. Science should be able to do their job without fear that they are persecuted if the government doesn't like their findings.
>Science
Scientists*
Bump
People need to see this
I am so confident in the scientists that are too scared to justify their scientific findings to a business mogul.
Clearly we don't need to worry about their methods.
I still have some hope. Obviously, people cannot bullshit themselves to the leader of the U.S. forever. Though, he will lose support if he backpedals. However, he never denied the idea that we need to change certain things about the environment, rather that China is just taking advantage of it. Idk it's all pretty fuzzy right now. I just hope musk redpills him.
>he never denied the idea that we need to change certain things about the environment
He called climate change a hoax on multiple occasions.
We don't. Science is self correcting. We don't need an outside authority with a lack in expertise to tell us what's what. It's supposed to be the other way around.
It really wonders me that the US is a first-world successful country. About half of its citizens voted trump, the other half is made of creationists and other science deniers, how does such a country achieve such an economic and scientific success?
WW2
If people can't accept nuclear power then it should all burn. the solution to global warming isn't economy crushing subsidies for wind and other meme powers
But considering how policy is being implemented, not actual environmental issues.
Do you really think other countries are any better? Your average retard knows very little about science.
What the hell does that have to do with the topic at hand?
This. You needn't be smart to fire boomstick.
Are you implying that climate change isn't an actual issue?
Thank god. Those faggots should be arrested for spreading fake "science"
0/10
>About half of its citizens voted trump, the other half is made of creationists and other science deniers
Good news, these are both the same half
Right, Trump just hasn't been convinced. It's not at all that he believes in any conspiracy that is mildly convenient.
Brexit
>justify
No one's asking them to justify their findings. And that's exactly the problem, because justifying them is easy.
No, it's real and humans are mainly the cause. But it's quite questionable the methods employed by politicians to educate about the problem and find solutions. Most scientists would agree that nuclear is one of the best options, but it scawy shit that stains political careers because ecofaggots are anti science hippies.
Trump has zero scientific background. His education is a joke as well, he has BA from Penn. That's it. No graduate studies, nothing scientific in his background. He probably has very little if any understanding of physics, chemistry and biology, let alone earth sciences. His education was 50 fucking years ago, how much could he even remember if he wanted to?
We have retards like this with no scientific background running everything in our government. At least the typical Lawyer politicians can be smart enough to delegate and listen to experts in their respective fields, while not understanding the science themselves.
His entire cabinet is filled with people just like himself, pseudo-intellectuals with fucking Bachelor's degrees.
Compare this to Obama's cabinets. I disagree a lot with some of Obama's positions and the way he has violated the 4th amendment during his tenure, but his cabinet picks aren't all that bad. His DoE position was led by Steven Chu, and currently Ernest Moniz. Chu is a physcisist with a fucking Nobel Prize for his work. Moniz is a nuclear physicist from MIT, has a BS from BC and MS / PhD from Stanford.
Their replacement is fucking Rick Perry. A guy who barely passed his classes. He only has a BS in Animal Science from Texas A&M. This is the same guy who wanted to cut funding for the DoE, while at the same time forgetting the name of the organization when he was attempting to justify the cuts.
I mean fuck, hate Obama all you want, but at least his cabinet members had some kind of experience and expertise in the organizations they led.
lel, you think Trump's admin will bring a nuclear renaissance? Think again. Petroleum Industry wants to maintain and expand their monopoly on electricity and transport energy in the US. They are not in the interest of Nuclear gaining momentum.
>Hasn't been convinced.
Neither has any other denialist who refuses to look at the evidence and relies on cherry-picked presentations from think-tanks like Heartland and George C. Marshall to formulate their opinion on climate science.
I guarantee you this. Trump will not change his position. His cabinet, his fucking advisers on his transition team deny the science of AGW. You think a man that makes appointments like Rex Tillerson, Rick Perry, Jeff Sessions, Ben Carson, Betsy DeVos, Reince Priebus, and Scott Pruitt, all of whom deny the scientific evidence for climate change, is going to change his mind? It doesn't matter. Even if he did the people he appoint would not and nothing would change in his energy policies. He is a shill for the Fossil Fuel industry. Nothing will change that.
Um, isn't coal and gas power also heavily subsidized and close to tax free?
the war on science marches on.
lol america's already going through a nuclear renaissance, all Trump has to do is sit back and take credit for it.
>he thinks the nuclear lobby isn't powerful too
>he thinks there isn't big money in the nuclear industry
jej
>This is starting to look like a witch hunt on scientists who publish inconvenient findings.
Is this satire?
Academia has been doing this for fucking decades.
Libtards BTFO enjoy a dose of your own medicine cucks
Last I remember was oil prices going down and nuclear permits being delayed as fuck.
I don't think many people like nuclear in the US so he isn't gonna take credit for it. Republicans and Democrats alike are really scared of it.
I know that tactic
>pretend you're heavily oppressed by guys you don't like while most of it is them thinking you're a total gaylord, but still treating you fairly
>get power
>actually heavily oppress people pretending that it's an eye for an eye and it's justified
There is no real renaissance. How many new plants are being opened this year, next year?
Also, yes the Nuclear industry, particularly the Uranium industry is part of the reason the industry itself hasn't expanded. Research into alternate Nuclear power plants like Molten Salt reactors was never fully realized, and I read somewhere that this was because the government wanted Uranium plants that could produce fissile material as a byproduct of the reaction for nuclear bombs. Of course this was decades ago during the Cold War, and things have changed a lot, yet we still haven't had a resurgence in this type of research despite there being a lot of potential.
The Uranium companies themselves are probably more interested in simply maintaining their monopolies on the Nuclear industry itself than allowing investment into alternative forms of Nuclear, which would require billions in investments.
Americans are weakly in support of nuclear power and nobody gives a fuck about what spineless paid off establishment candidates fear.
Sounds like you're describing radical leftists to me.
Stormlards have no imagination, that's why they became stormlards in the first place and repost the party line over and over and over and over again on every site they can. They're like robots, unthinking and unfeeling. They may as well just be coded bots for all the insight you get out of them.
I'm setting my sights on business with or in China within the next 10 years.
You're unable to see a simple direct similarity and I'm the unthinking robot? Seems legit.
I puke a little when i feel my head nod in agreement.
It's a good thing I don't like full blown Marxists about the same but slightly less compared to whatever muh degeneracy crowd likes to call themselves.
>I'm a "muh degenerate" stormfag for simply pointing out that academia has been witch hunting scientists that don't fit their leftist narrative for the last 40 years.
Yes, you truly are the rational one here.
>witch hunting
You mean peer reviewing papers and getting massive butthurt from the guys who got heavily criticized. But hey even Einstein got heavily butthurt after errors in his work were pointed. Science hurts feelings the most.
You're also pretty defensive about he slightest implication of you possibly belonging to a group your views align with.
>You're mad that I'm fitting you into a group you're not in thus proving you're in that group.
Ok
Name some of them.
Who? Roy fucking Spencer? John fucking Christy? Richard Lindzen? Who are all of these blacklisted people you mention, because those three alone are the largest critics within the field of atmospheric sciences themselves and they still publish.
All you are doing is creating conjecture. You post shit without backing up anything, it's so typical.
Damn man why're you adding so much shit to my post? I didn't even call you a neonazi and you feel the need to definitely prove you're not from /pol/.
ITT and the whole internet: /pol/tards turn every discussion into contentious drivel.
What the fuck is wrong with his face? It looks mirrored.
we're supposed to be symmetrical
I think user was referring to liberals lack of belief in evolution concerning racial equality.
That's the /pol/opinion, anyways.
His face looks like it got HAAH WAAW'ed
>academia has been witch hunting scientists that don't fit their leftist narrative for the last 40 years
Except we haven't, at all. If you disagree then be explicit and give examples.
>We need to become vocal
Exactly this. Start a petition. Write your local Governor. Protest.
Most replies in this thread have an 'oh well' attitude. It seems like you faggots don't even care at all that censorship on science is becoming a reality. How the fuck is no one outraged about this?
People working on climate change are also scrambling to move all their work to backup servers outside of US government control, because they know that Trump's administration will simply delete all of their data once he takes office.
Maybe we could hold a book burning too. Why go only half way?
this is seriously messed up
> Write your local Governor.
The majority of US governors subscribe to the idea that global warming is a hoax and the scientific community is a bunch of con artists trying to pull a fast one on America.
Besides, it doesn't matter what the people want. More people wanted democrats, yet in January the republicans will have complete, unrestricted control of all aspects of the federal government as well as most of the states. They can then further enhance their ability to ignore what the people want by passing laws barring people from voting so that only their supporters can participate in elections.
The GOP has basically secured control of the US government for the next century, regardless of what the people want.
That's just the way America works. If stomping on a bunch of scientists will get some corporate executives even bigger bonuses, they'll do it every time. In the US, MBA > PHD.
>The majority of US governors subscribe to the idea that global warming is a hoax and the scientific community is a bunch of con artists trying to pull a fast one on America.
They do so because of a strong lobby of the fossil fuel industry. It would be incorrect to state that all Governors are immune to the demands of their constituents. Just look at how diary farmers have a hold on milk subsidies in Europe. Relatively small groups of people can get policy pushed through by simply becoming vocal, so that the local establishment cannot ignore them. Scientists aren't organized enough to have their voice heard in the political arena, but they definitely should be. Scientists are always striving to be a-political. But hopefully this will be the turning point.
>That's just the way America works.
>just
How can you trivialize this? This is a profoundly undemocratic process.
Scientists have fuck all in terms of money. The fossil fuel industry is made of literally the most profitable businesses in human history. Who do you think those governors are going to listen to? The businessmen they venerate as the people who create everything that makes society great, or the academics they condemn as marxist infiltrators and filthy liberal traitors?
This is America. Here, money is how people measure your worth as a human being. Rich person = good person, smart person, wise person. The richer you are, the more deserving you are of being listened to because you're obviously a winner because you're rich. That's the way Trump thinks, and it's the way most politicians think. They're not going to listen to someone who just happens to know things about the subject when they could listen to someone who has lots of money instead.
That to me sounds like a roll over and die kind of attitude. Why go down without a fight?
> This is a profoundly undemocratic process.
America is very proud of the fact that they aren't a democracy.
If you factor out the old-earth creationists, or people who believe God created humanity but everything else evolved, you'll realize that it's closer to 15% of the population that actually believe in 6000 year old creationism
>I think Trump will have to accept he cannot deny a well stablished scientific fact
and I think thats bullfuck. I mean, I dont want to go down the "literal hitler" road, but dictators are known to use systematic propaganda coupled with "persuading opposition" to be silent
(where persuasion might be threat of a death sentence, threat of your family being tortured/raped/executed, or, as more likely the case with trump, threat to lose your job/position/livelyhood)
if you think Trump doesnt have the means to do very serious damage to this planet, you are sorely mistaken
> Why go down without a fight?
As someone who has lived in an authoritarian state: Because not every death is equally bad. Where I grew up, if you protested against the government or big business, they would torture you. One of their favorites was nearly drowning you in raw sewage over, and over again because it didn't leave much in the way of visible damage. And then after months of that, maybe, just maybe, they would let you die of the diseases that you caught. I'd rather just lie down, go to sleep, and never wake up.
>politicize an apolitical topic (climate change)
>justify it as a means to push a political agenda
>act surprised when the parties that oppose said agenda then become speculative of the apolitical topic used to justify their actions
>add in the fact that we've had like 2 or 3 "points of no return" and people become less concerned due to a "boy who cried wolf" effect when people in the early 2000's said major cities would be underwater by now.
That said Trump will probably come out believing in Climate Change soon enough. I give it 2 months, tops. There's a reason he keeps inviting/allowing people to Trump Tower to talk to him about it.
Democracies are just mob rule so I don't know why you would want to live under a system without checks and balances, i.e. a republic.
That sounds absolutely horrible. It may sound paradoxical, but it is also exactly the reason for why you should become vocal now. Because as it stands, no one is getting tortured just yet. But that may change if you let it happen.
>politicize an apolitical topic (climate change)
>justify it as a means to push a political agenda
Nonsense.
It's the science that motivates policy, but you people seem to think it's the other way around. YOU are the one who is politicizing the science, when scientists are only trying to drive policy with science. It's a one way street, but you and people like you are turning it into a roundabout.
Good.
Unilateral action on climate change is absolutely pointless and there isn't enough political will to cut CO2 emmisions globally. (Assuming of course that cutting greenhouse gasses would have the desired effect, which is a big assumption when you consider the fact that climate models overestimated global warming over the past 20 or so years.)
A fossil fuel boom will provide thousands of jobs and cut energy prices for the poorest.
Not really.
42% of Americans believe the following statement: God created humans in their current form within the last 10,000 years.
gallup.com
> More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago, a view that has changed little over the past three decades.
your own information confirms what I say though- they don't believe in a 6,000 year old earth
...
>there isn't enough political will to cut CO2 emmisions globally
Except that will was starting to develop with the Paris agreement.
>A fossil fuel boom will provide thousands of jobs and cut energy prices for the poorest.
And it will take away jobs and will necessarily increase taxes to fund disaster relief funds in the long run. You're short sighted.
>politicize an apolitical topic (climate change)
>apolitical topic (climate change)
>climate change
>apolitical
so you think humans polluting the biosphere to the point where it is no longer habitable for the human species is a topic that political leaders shouldnt be concerned with?
why are you even here? are you one of those popsci highschool faggots that thinks he's smart because he watched a 10 minute video explaining 1+2+...=-1/12 ?
you a seriously cancer.
leave
They believe in equal to or less than 10,000 years. Whether they believe it's 10,000 years on the dot or 8,000 years or 5,500 years isn't much of a difference. All of those can reasonably be classified as young Earth creationists. Sure, not all of them believe in the exact 6,000 number, but all 42% believe in 10,000 or less.
>YOU are the one who is politicizing the science
Because I'm the one arguing that the redistribution of wealth will somehow reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
>when humans came into existence = when the universe came into existence
They were polled on the former, not the latter.
Neither am I you moron. This thread is about censorship on science.
People who believe in young humanity also believe that the world was created for humanity.