EPA Website Removes Climate Science Site From Public View After Two Decades (washingtonpost.com) 167
Last week there were reports that the EPA climate change website was set to be taken down, though later the EPA denied that. On Friday evening, however, the Environmental Protection Agency announced its website would be "undergoing changes" to better represent the new direction the agency is taking, triggering the removal of several agency websites containing detailed climate data and scientific information (paywalled; alternative source). From a report on The Washington Post: One of the websites that appeared to be gone had been cited to challenge statements made by the EPA's new administrator, Scott Pruitt. Another provided detailed information on the previous administration's Clean Power Plan, including fact sheets about greenhouse gas emissions on the state and local levels and how different demographic groups were affected by such emissions. The changes came less than 24 hours before thousands of protesters were set to march in Washington and around the country in support of political action to push back against the Trump administration's rollbacks of former president Barack Obama's climate policies.
Perfect representation: (Score:1, Insightful)
Aaaaaand the site is going down. Which is the new direction the agency is taking.
Re: (Score:2)
It could slow down the hype but then again...
Re: (Score:2)
Look here, Trump and his Brilliant A-Team believe in evidence driven science, and as we can see, there is now no evidence and everything is clear, so what's your problem, actually? ;-)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I know right! Unless it's on Alex Jones, Rence, or Time Cube Guy's website, it's just more of those liberal fact based hit pieces!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Last time I checked, Berkley is a University in one city. They don't represent "Liberls" as much as the toothless wonders in West Virginia represent "Conservatives."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is the Antichrist and worships Satan!
Nope, he only worships himself. Are you calling him Satan?
Re: (Score:1)
You mean like the same fully-funded government agencies that said Iraq had WMDs?
Or the same fully-funded agencies (NSA) that can't be trusted when they say they will no longer read emails with foreign targets?
Or are you referring to the self-same EPA that claimed Michigan's water supply was completely safe?
La Niña is about to bite us in the arse (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless the swings we are seeing in the cycle of El Niño and La Niña are not really occurring Dear Donald is about to be the president who will be in office at the start of the greatest climate caused disaster in recorded history. The past 10 years have seen unprecedented drought on the the West Coast now we are about to see a cyclical change that could very well make a huge portion of the Gulf coast and the Redneck Riviera uninhabitable. There are area of the low lying Gulf coast that could easily be flooded multiple time by hurricane storm surges.
Watch out we are in for a kick in the ass from mother nature and the financial and human cost could make the dust bowl of dirty thirties look like good times. But then again I am sure somehow Obama and Hillary will be blamed for what is about to occur. Removing science from the equation and allowing politics to dictate what information is available is par for the course for that jackass and bunch of morons left of the Republican "blow you Jack, I'm alright" assholes currently running the show. If Lincoln was a dictator then what these assholes are about is far worse, at least real Republicans do not endorse or engage in scientific censorship and in so doing marginalize sectors of the populace.
The US is at best 2 pay periods away from complete anarchy and if an area as full of rednecks as the Gulf coast suddenly becomes a disaster caused everyman for himself war zone no one will not be able to stop the ensuing chaos.
Re: (Score:1)
Long term planning for the betterment of society, and the environment, is reduced to three month corporate profit targets.
We're so fucked.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
I'll bet that after hurricane Katrina, you said, "this is going to keep happening every year and we will see more and more hurricanes, it will be horrible".
I'm absolutely certain you believed that. And you would have been Very wrong.
So why is this prediction any better...?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The post you responded to would have been easily refuted with a rational argument, but you felt the need to make up statements the poster never said and responded to those instead.
Do you just not see how that makes you look as childishly reactionary as the person you were responding to?
Re: La Niña is about to bite us in the arse (Score:1, Troll)
How has predicting climate catastrophe worked out for you alarmists?
Re: (Score:2)
In the same way as for you.
Depending on your age you are probably dead when the worst parts of the change hit mankind.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they keep predicting the end of the world, and it never comes to pass. I give them about as much credence as the Mayan calendar.
Re: La Niña is about to bite us in the arse (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They keep predicting that too.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any links for that?
I never saw anyone predicting 'the end of the world' in such a short time frame.
We are talking about 50-100 years.
That we will have a few more meters high sea levels in 100 years, is for sure. The only questionis: will it be already in 50 years, and how many meters will it be ...
Re: (Score:2)
No, they keep predicting the end of the world, and it never comes to pass. I give them about as much credence as the Mayan calendar.
Link to someone saying that climate change has already or should have already ended the world. Do it now.
Re: (Score:2)
Here ya go....
https://www.aei.org/publicatio... [aei.org]
They were fabulously totally and completely wrong.
This was easy to find, the fact that you didn't know about this shows how you have blinders on about how alarmists and doomsayers work....
Re: (Score:2)
Be fair, "the greatest climate disaster" started long before Trump took office. It might even be before Lincoln. It's just that nobody noticed it at the time, because it's taken a long time to build. Trump may, however, be president at a point of inflection (a point, because you can't even roughly model it with simple quadratic function). Things are, indeed, likely to get worse quickly for a bit, but Trump didn't cause that, he's just been refusing to ameliorate it.
Re: (Score:2)
There are area of the low lying Gulf coast that could easily be flooded multiple time by hurricane storm surges.
[...]
The US is at best 2 pay periods away from complete anarchy and if an area as full of rednecks as the Gulf coast suddenly becomes a disaster caused everyman for himself war zone no one will not be able to stop the ensuing chaos.
1942 - Hurricane make landfall at Matagorda, TX
1945 - Hurricane makes landfall at Port Aransas, TX
1947 - Hurricane makes landfall at Chandeleur Island, LA
1949 - Hurricane makes landfall at Freeport, TX
1956 - Hurricane Flossy makes landfall at Burrwood, LA
1957 - Hurricane Audrey makes landfall at Port Arthur, TX
1961 - Hurricane Carla makes landfall at Port O'Connor, TX
1964 - Hurricane Hilda makes landfall at Morgan City, LA
1965 - Hurricane Betsy makes landfall at New Orleans, LA
1966 - Hurricane Alma makes la
Re: (Score:1)
And yet the so-called conservatives and right wing are marching us as fast towards this nanny state as any other political faction, if not faster. There's a slow and steady drive towards authoritarianism that seems to be accelerating.
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than attack the words and ideas someone says, you attack the person with a label and call them stupid. Do you deny that we have been marching toward authoritarianism since 9/11 (perhaps before)?
Liberal Censorship! (Score:5, Funny)
Those pesky liberals *want* you to think CO2 is rising, they *want* you to believe the earth if getting hotter, they even dare to suggest it's man-made!
But this is all a theory. Respect my alternative facts!
Fact, it's getting colder, due to the lack of CO2 caused by too many trees eating all our CO2!
There's more ice than ever before! Look at all that ice off Newfoundland, more icebergs than ever before! How is that possible if it isn't colder? Fact!
President elected by biggest majority ever, Donald J Trump, will make America great again!
Re: (Score:2)
What is 306/438? Not 56.5 you idiot.
438? That is one hundred fewer votes than are in the electoral college.
And 306 is 2 higher than the number of electoral votes Trump actually got.
I can forgive missing that one, but really, did nobody teach you how many members the electoral college has?
He learned all he needs to know about it at Trump Electoral University.
Re: (Score:1)
(goes into hiding)
The dinosaurs are doing fine and dandy (Score:1)
The dinosaurs are doing fine and dandy, they just downsized, Permian-Triassic extinction event never happened. Do a search on Breitbart for "Permian-Triassic extinction event" and you won't find any coverage of it because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Facts people!
CO2 is crashing dangerously low (if you take out that tiny increase since the industrial revolution which is just noise, FACT!).
Any claimed increase is personally due to the Donald , saving us from depleted CO2 reserves! FACT!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:CO2 levels are falling (Score:5, Funny)
true, but then again 100 million years ago the average temperature was significantly hotter, and the ocean levels were higher too.
as the northern artic passages open up think how much the sea level will rise. a mere 6 feet floods, New york, Boston, New orleans (again) Washington Dc, Atlanta, etc.
All those liberal will then have to move someplace dry and once conservative areas will suddenly become liberal.
What will conservatives do then? Protect the climate now to prevent the flood of liberals into your area. /s
Re: (Score:2)
New York will attempt to build a wall around wall street [businessinsider.com], effectively anyhow. I predict it will fail horribly and we will see skyscrapers falling over due to the effects of seawater in 3..2..1.. (well, not yet. it's not quite time.)
Re: (Score:2)
So dutch architects will probably in high demand :)
Re: (Score:2)
New York will attempt to build a wall around wall street, effectively anyhow. I predict it will fail horribly and we will see skyscrapers falling over due to the effects of seawater in 3..2..1.. (well, not yet. it's not quite time.)
The larger skyscrapers in New York have concrete-encased steel foundation pillars that reach right down to bedrock. Whether the soil around them is dry or wet, they won't subside. The smaller ones have pillars that reach only partway to bedrock, though still very very deep. Well below sea level, so if they were going to be affected by the water table, it would have already happened. Only the small buildings in New York are at risk, including all those nice, expensive brownstones.
Re: (Score:1)
true, but then again 100 million years ago the average temperature was significantly hotter, and the ocean levels were higher too.
Then, as nature has done it before, who guarantees that it's not nature that's doing it now (raising the CO2 levels)?
And if not, is there any guarantee nature will not do it again in the foreseeable future?
And if there's no such guarantee, or even a more than slight probability, then why bother about our own produced CO2?
Because clearly we can't beat nature. Can we?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then, as nature has done it before, who guarantees that it's not nature that's doing it now (raising the CO2 levels)?
Simple. Look at how much fossil fuels we've burned in the last century, and calculate how much CO2 that would have produced. Then measure the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Notice how the first number is 2 times bigger than the second.
Re: CO2 levels are falling (Score:1)
You can also look at the isotopic ratios. The atmosphere is getting older. Carbon dating things from this century in 10000 years will be complicated
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon dating is at best unreliable and at worst, little better than looking at tarot cards. America can't afford to keep relying on these so called "scientific" theories and instead needs to deal with facts. Fact is, carbon dating isn't reliable. FACT.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the numbers match quite nicely. ...
The only sink is the ocean
Re: (Score:2)
The ocean and plants. Both take up about 25% of the extra CO2, and the rest stays in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
Plants are a zero sum game.
They release the same amount of CO2 when they rot as they consumed when they grew.
Re: (Score:2)
Long term, yes. But short term they've been acting as a sink.
Source: http://www.earth-syst-sci-data... [earth-syst...iscuss.net]
page 1152 has an easy to read graphic.
Re: (Score:2)
If CO2 goes down, plant life will act as a source.
Re: (Score:2)
Growing plants are a sink.
That is a no brainer.
No need to post links.
Rotting plants emmit the exact same amount of CO2 they ate before. That is a no brainer, too.
So, what you wanted to say is beyond me.
Re: (Score:2)
Never mind the rotting, there's increased vegetation volume, or mass, or how you want to measure it, and that binds more CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe- if all other factors are removed like different carbon compounds being created from the rotting plants or animals and bugs doing what nature does and it ends up as different carbon compounds or trees not actually rotting and instead being used in buildings and such which is actually buried in a land fill (read sequestered) instead of pushed to the side of the road to rot when they are torn down and replaced. But hey, we don't need to worry about all that other stuff as long as the point can be made.
Re: (Score:1)
true, but then again 100 million years ago the average temperature was significantly hotter, and the ocean levels were higher too.
Then, as nature has done it before, who guarantees that it's not nature that's doing it now (raising the CO2 levels)?
CO2 levels typically come from sources like volcanoes. Yes, it's possible that another big volcanic event could occur, say like the Siberian traps. The added CO2 would be the least of our problems if that happened. major temperature swings as Sulfur aerosols lower temperatures, then we'd deal with swings the other way as the CO2 does it's job.
And if not, is there any guarantee nature will not do it again in the foreseeable future? And if there's no such guarantee, or even a more than slight probability, then why bother about our own produced CO2?
We are all going to die, so why bother getting out of bed - just lie there until we're dead.
Because clearly we can't beat nature. Can we?
Nope, at least not now. but we can work at getting along with it.
It's al
Re: (Score:2)
I hear that Keene, NH, is nice in the summer and that they welcome newcomers with different ideas there.
Re: (Score:1)
Atlanta? Uh oh. Now THAT'S flooding...
Re: (Score:1)
Atlanta? Uh oh. Now THAT'S flooding...
You have never heard of the Lost City of Atlanta? (...)
Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
The Trumper has flip flopped and lied about everything which has come out of his mouth so this shouldn't surprise anyone. Here's what he said only a week ago [cnn.com]:
"Rigorous science is critical to my administration's efforts to achieve the twin goals of economic growth and environmental protection."
"My administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks," Trump said. "As we do so, we should remember that rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate.
What better way to advance scientific research and allow for honest inquiry and robust debate than to wipe from the record, the very research one claims to support.
P.S. He had no problem claiming climate change [cbsnews.com] as the reason he needed to build a sea wall [theguardian.com] around his Irish golf course:
"If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct, however, it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland. In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. ... As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase."
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess he means alternative science.
Every American should be worried about this. Aside from the health damage at a time when healthcare is threatened, and aside from the environmental damage, it's going to make it hard for America to do trade deals and export goods.
Just because Trump thinks it's a Chinese conspiracy, doesn't mean that, for example, the EU will just ignore it. If the US emits more pollution, low tariff trade deals will be impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
I used EPA data to find out about the CFC114 emissions from uranium enrichment from Paducah. The data was presented as CSV that I downloaded and then put into a spreadsheet to find out just how much was being released.
It wasn't easy, however when you put in the work the EPA data is pretty useful. So much for progress, I doubt polluters will see this as bad news now that public accountability isn't something they have to worry about.
Re: (Score:1)
That is an obsolete gaseous diffusion plant which is no longer operating, and the contamination is of a sort which may be found at many a large industrial site. As such, it isn't the best example, unless you are looking for something nuclear to complain about. Fortunately, there are better ways to enrich uranium today, and a LFTR won't need any enrichment at all.
Providing data is a useful service, and should be unrelated to climate science, even for a refrigerant of concern. The summary doesn't make it c
Re: (Score:2)
That is an obsolete gaseous diffusion plant which is no longer operating, and the contamination is of a sort which may be found at many a large industrial site.
Yes, I am aware it is no longer in service. I took the data while it was operating.
As such, it isn't the best example, unless you are looking for something nuclear to complain about.
No, it's the example that I had used. If I had picked fracking or coal or anything else I would like the data to be available on that as well.
Fortunately, there are better ways to enrich uranium today,
What are they?
and a LFTR won't need any enrichment at all.
How does that address the issue of the radioactive waste from the current fleet of nuclear reactors. Do thorium reactors burn up DU and plutonium.
Providing data is a useful service, and should be unrelated to climate science, even for a refrigerant of concern.
We should have data on all industrial pollutants in the environment.
The summary doesn't make it clear if this is also gone, and it seems disingenuous of the summary to conflate the two.
Well, as long as we have the data available.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
>"The Trumper has flip flopped and lied about everything which has come out of his mouth"
Actually that is not true. On most things he has done exactly what he said he was going to do. You might not like some of the things he did, but that doesn't mean he is lying or flip-flopping "about everything."
Re: (Score:1)
On most things he has done exactly what he said he was going to do. You might not like some of the things he did, but that doesn't mean he is lying or flip-flopping "about everything."
Actually, that is false, he has done little to nothing of what he said he was going to do, none of it in any way close to exactly how he said he was going to do it, and everything he has done, he has compulsively lied about due to his tendency for braggadocio and irresponsibility.
Sorry, but while you might like the things he said, that just means you refuse to admit that he has flip-flopped and lied about everything which has come out of his mouth. Which describes pretty much all of Trump's supporters I'v
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So he did nothing?
Read more carefully:
he has done little to nothing of what he said he was going to do, none of it in any way close to exactly how he said he was going to do it, and everything he has done, he has compulsively lied about due to his tendency for braggadocio and irresponsibility.
Pretty much says he has done things, but failed to do it as he said he would, and lied about it.
If I had wanted to say he had done nothing, I could have said that, but no, I merely stated he had done little to nothing, and none of it wa
Re:So he did nothing? (Score:4, Insightful)
I could reduce unemployment claims to zero overnight, it's easy. Just make everyone ineligible for unemployment and POOF, no more claims.
This is why unemployment claims are a terrible measure of actual unemployment level, because it ignores everyone who doesn't (or can't) file a claim.
If the number of claims drops, does it mean less people are unemployed, or does it just mean less people are trying to claim it?
As far as the S&P goes, Trump has no control over that, and it's only a sign that corporations are seeing a far more corporate-friendly government. It also benefits the upper class far more than the middle class (the majority of capital gains are claimed by people with incomes above 200k/year)
I will give him credit for the reduction in immigration, but it's questionable if that is actually a good thing. Remember, EVERY person in America (other than the native americans) is either an immigrant or the descendant of an immigrant. If they had done something like this 150 years ago, most of us probably wouldn't exist. To say "I hate immigrants" is no different than saying "I hate my great grandparents".
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
If I had a dollar for every time Trump said "Only I can / understand X!" where X is anything that is a current social, economic, or political problem, I would be very rich indeed.
Now Trump is saying "X is harder than I thought" more often than not. It seems that items he understood better than the rest of the world are actually hard, and he's just finding out.
There is a scientific basis for this, it is called the Dunning Kruger effect [wikipedia.org]. The short version is, "if you don't know anything about it, your confidence in your statements and actions are high". So we have a President that goes in swinging his fists, and winds up making the situation worse.
The EPA measurements are not privately funded, they are paid for with your tax dollars. As they are not part of a national security agenda, withholding that data is denying your the fruits of your tax payments.
An analogy would be if Trump decided to close a the National Parks permanently for public visitation, only permitting his hand-picked cadre visitation rights. Another analogy would be him "withholding tax preparation information" from tax payers that didn't agree with his agenda (but of course, not withholding on tax prosecution).
We are going to live with the impact of global warming, whether that impact is better or worse than our projected expectations. By pulling this information offline, Trump's directives are for us to live with the impact in the blind. It is as if to "solve the traffic problem" we banned all radio broadcast of traffic accidents and freeway slowdowns.
I hope Trump supporters realize that they are losing access to the science they have purchased. Science can be a tricky field, where one can make mistakes in understanding what is behind an observation; but, closing one's eyes to observation is not going to advance any field. What did Trump give in return for taking your paid-for observations away from you?
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing he says is inconsistent, you just have to read between the lines.
For example, when he says "a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks", what he really means is "the 'current' understanding disagrees with my personal beliefs and desires, therefore, the problem must be the 'current' understanding, so we need a 'better' one"
Re: (Score:2)
Well, actually, his EPA head says that climate change is an engineering problem that can be met with engineering solutions. I'm not sure why Trump would put a guy like that into office if he thought it was all hogwash and wasn't open to real ideas and facts about it.
What is hogwash is the idea that only by retarding the economy and making things more expensive for first world countries can climate change be tackled. There is more than one way to travel across town, there is more than one way to make a gallo
Dear Americans (Score:1)
Would a kind American please make the freedom if information request for this data, so it can be mirrored and hosted for the global scietific community? If we aren't going to have more data, let's at least preserve what is available now.
Mirrors (Score:5, Informative)
we're lucky this got announced early, so there have been efforts to save this data:
Github repo [reddit.com]
list of mirrors [daknob.net]
another one [rehmann.co]
more [saveourepa.com]
even more [ucr.edu]
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
pfft, unnecessary as info was already archived on other sites such as under data.gov domain.
bunch of hysterics over non-news.
They removed it because it's useless (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, who needs data when you have ideology?
Republicans cannot be worked with. (Score:1)
Making sure 'wrong' opinions are downvoted (Score:2)
I got an idea (Score:2)
And They Saw This Coming (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
because this data isn't already redundantly archived under data.gov domain?
this "news" is hysterical pants-shitting over nothing being lost
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they merely are removing a redundant copy, what's the big deal?
Re: (Score:2)
This is not even proof by intimidation, this is proof by meltdown.
Take a deep breath. Take ten more. Sit down. Think of cute kittens. Wait until your anger has left you.
Now, explain again. Why is it not news when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for specious reasons removes data related to protecting the environment from its website?
Get around it. (Score:1)
Re:I hear we may get a data dump (Score:5, Informative)
A list of people directed to disclose the datasets they have been refusing FOIA on under the Obama administration.
The datasets are public and downloadable. The FOIA thing was when Lamar Smith went on a witch hunt and demanded the emails of all scientists at the agency. Smith machine gunned NOAA with a flood of FOIA requests, which can be effectively used in denial of service attacks on government agencies. http://harvardpolitics.com/cul... [harvardpolitics.com]
belief is irrelevent (Score:2, Insightful)
What you or I believe is irrelevent. The facts are the facts and nature will take its course regardless of what anyone believes.
The folks who have the expertise in climate science have the data and every one of THEIR predictions have com true. See, climate scientists discovered the link between fossil fuel burning and increasing temps back in the 1980s. Aside from tweets to rates, their predictions are spot on.
But, the fossil fuel industry - mostly coal - terrified of losing business, lobbied and ran advert
Re: (Score:3)
See, climate scientists discovered the link between fossil fuel burning and increasing temps back in the 1980s.
You mean around 1880, I think. Not 1980.
Re:Its become too political (Score:4, Insightful)
It has become politicized, because strong business interests are resisting acceptance of scientific consensus. This is nothing unusual. Business will always dispute facts that can lead to regulation costing them money. They will even claim that their cynical twisting of the facts is mandatory, because they have a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder value.
Climate change is complicated, and no serious scientist will claim they know exactly where it is leading. What is universal among climate scientists is that human induced climate change has and is occurring. There are tentative conclusions about some of its effects, and warnings that failing to act to reduce human induced climate change risks truly catastrophic consequences. If the worst happens, it may not be for 100 years, but the earlier action is taken, the lower the cost of remediation is likely to be. The commonly held view is that it is irresponsible, and totally unfair to future generations, to dodge taking prudent steps because it will cost some businesses money.
Re: (Score:1)
As much as people love to blame companies, they're not alone in this. Activists have politicized the issue too. Being the petulant children that they (quite literally) are they're so convinced they know everything and that everyone else is wrong, that they have radicalized the whole debate to a point where opposing views are (a little less literally) the devil. Coupled with the whole recent "science is infallible" religious movement the whole issue has become a clusterfuck devoid of facts and full of us-vs-
Re: (Score:2)
As much as people love to blame companies, they're not alone in this. Activists have politicized the issue too. Being the petulant children that they (quite literally) are they're so convinced they know everything and that everyone else is wrong, that they have radicalized the whole debate to a point where opposing views are (a little less literally) the devil.
Absolutely. The denialist movement was bankrolled by big business, but the activist deniers are responsible for their own lies as well.
Coupled with the whole recent "science is infallible" religious movement the whole issue has become a clusterfuck devoid of facts and full of us-vs-them.
Absolutely. The denialist movement is completely divorced from any basis in science - ask any of them to prove their assertions, and you won't see them for the dust of their retreat.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>That's not science when even believers begin to doubt the data.
Yes, that is exactly science. Doubting your own premises, your data sources, and your conclusions -- all of this combines into the building of the large experimental knowledge base that was being developed before many of us were born. If there were only "believers", there beliefs would be political or religious or some other form of bullshit. Remove yourself from belief, doubt your own conclusions, and develop tests to further understand
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally I am not convinced either way because the climate data has become so political.
Being political just means the politicians on one side decided they didn't like the conclusions so it became a political controversy.
You have people who were all in and suddenly come out saying its all a ruse and data has been cooked to fit the political agenda.
I haven't seen any of that, at least not outside a very small fringe.
As for scientists as a whole being politicized, what else are they supposed to do? The scientists have been under a sustained political attack for over a decade, how can they defend themselves without becoming politicized.
That's not science when even believers begin to doubt the data. The problem is that political agendas don't follow data, they follow what they fabricate as the truth. What we need is more science and less trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.
What we need is for the denialists to start sincerely looking at evidence and engaging w
Re: Its become too political (Score:2)
The right conclusion is to isolate and exclude from the discussion those who slap an 'ist' suffix on the name they call their opponents.
A wise old man once said "isms are schisms."
Re: (Score:2)
Ok then, to avoid triggering your allergy: The right conclusion is to tell wilfully ignorant people to STFU until they grow up and start taking the task of public discourse seriously.
The advantage of this phrasing is also that it covers not only people that are wilfully ignorant of climate change, but also of other important issues such as vaccination.
Re: (Score:1)
We need no pseudo-scientific government propaganda.
Right on! Now it's time for proper full-blown anti-scientific government propaganda
Libtard thermometers (Score:1)
Thermometers are just tools of libtard propaganda. I mean, how can I possibly have a so-called "fever" if my feet are cold? Where are the peer-reviewed scientific papers that show thermometers aren't a hoax? And I don't mean in libtard fake "scientific" journals like Nature, but in legitimate journals like this one:
http://www.coresci.org/jcts/ [coresci.org]
Trump needs to outlaw thermometers, is what.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If your "criticism" of global warming science requires you to invoke Hitler, it's probably not me that's the partisan ideologue here.
Re: (Score:1)
The church of Climatology needs to follow the same rules of separation of church and state as all the others.
So impeach the head of the Church of Trump.