This is very worrying as it's starting to look like the same BS that Harper tried to push in Canada. Which was just bad policy and the kind of thing that can keep scientists away from doing valuable research for years.
EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff
31–40 of 211 posts
Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What exactly is he afraid that'll happen? [1] Why all of the resistance? He is afraid of being proved wrong. It's a very common problem with climate change deniers. Facts and figures keep piling up but they always grasp any possible alternative explanation. The longer they sustain their position, the fooler the look if they backtrack, so they tend to become more and more entrenched in their opinions. Trump just hap…
When you say he denies climate change, are you referring to climate change itself, or man made climate change? I know man made climate change deniers who fully believe in climate change. But the term "climate change denier" gets thrown around so loosely (sometimes I wonder if that's intentional), that I don't know what people are actually referring to.
I think most, when referring to "climate change denier" mean to say "anthropogenic climate change denier". Most people who are "climate change denier"s in the above sense do actually believe in climate change in general just not the fact that we have influenced it.
Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff
#33All of these changes that Trump is making in his first week are making me wonder: what's the population limit, really, for a well functioning democracy? I'm no historian, but didn't the United States go around saying how great democracy is? I don't know about you, but to me it definitely feels like it doesn't work quite as intended. As for the article at hand, all I can offer is this" Trump's blatant distrust for cli…
It's worth noting that 3 million more people voted for Hillary. I wouldn't chalk this one up to a design issue, rather implementation (in this case, weighting votes by geographic region). We've submitted a patch and are waiting for enough reviewers to approve: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Campaign trails are also designed with the electoral vote in mind. Saying Hillary would have won if the election was based on popular vote, is not necessarily true.
Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What exactly is he afraid that'll happen? [1] Why all of the resistance? He is afraid of being proved wrong. It's a very common problem with climate change deniers. Facts and figures keep piling up but they always grasp any possible alternative explanation. The longer they sustain their position, the fooler the look if they backtrack, so they tend to become more and more entrenched in their opinions. Trump just hap…
When you say he denies climate change, are you referring to climate change itself, or man made climate change? I know man made climate change deniers who fully believe in climate change. But the term "climate change denier" gets thrown around so loosely (sometimes I wonder if that's intentional), that I don't know what people are actually referring to.
The description here applies to both.
Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff
#35All of these changes that Trump is making in his first week are making me wonder: what's the population limit, really, for a well functioning democracy? I'm no historian, but didn't the United States go around saying how great democracy is? I don't know about you, but to me it definitely feels like it doesn't work quite as intended. As for the article at hand, all I can offer is this" Trump's blatant distrust for cli…
> what's the population limit, really, for a well functioning democracy?
I think that's the wrong question but it leads us to the corrective answer.
The founders provided us with a Bill of Rights, a constitution, separation of powers, and democratic processes for 2 of the 3 branches.
Of these, the first two scale to as large a number as you wish. We need to start insisting on a robust interpretation of our civil rights. That was always the intended protection mechanism.
[fix typo]
Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff
#36All of these changes that Trump is making in his first week are making me wonder: what's the population limit, really, for a well functioning democracy? I'm no historian, but didn't the United States go around saying how great democracy is? I don't know about you, but to me it definitely feels like it doesn't work quite as intended. As for the article at hand, all I can offer is this" Trump's blatant distrust for cli…
I'm just curious, what are the absolute best articles/papers that prove the following:
1) Climate change (meaning the planet is warming).
2) Climate change is man made and causing the planet to warm.
Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff
#37All of these changes that Trump is making in his first week are making me wonder: what's the population limit, really, for a well functioning democracy? I'm no historian, but didn't the United States go around saying how great democracy is? I don't know about you, but to me it definitely feels like it doesn't work quite as intended. As for the article at hand, all I can offer is this" Trump's blatant distrust for cli…
It's worth noting that 3 million more people voted for Hillary. I wouldn't chalk this one up to a design issue, rather implementation (in this case, weighting votes by geographic region). We've submitted a patch and are waiting for enough reviewers to approve: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
The electoral college is not the problem. If we remove that, than states that lose representation they were promised when they joined should have the right to secede.
Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff
#38All of these changes that Trump is making in his first week are making me wonder: what's the population limit, really, for a well functioning democracy? I'm no historian, but didn't the United States go around saying how great democracy is? I don't know about you, but to me it definitely feels like it doesn't work quite as intended. As for the article at hand, all I can offer is this" Trump's blatant distrust for cli…
It's worth noting that 3 million more people voted for Hillary. I wouldn't chalk this one up to a design issue, rather implementation (in this case, weighting votes by geographic region). We've submitted a patch and are waiting for enough reviewers to approve: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
This is a silly argument. Trump and Clinton competed for the electoral college, not the popular vote. Which means that Trump spent a lot of time campaigning for one electoral vote in Maine and almost none in courting millions of people in California and New York. It's impossible to say what the outcome would have been if the popular vote would have mattered, because both campaigns would be run totally differently.
Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff
#39It feels like such a strange time to be alive. Even if you disagree with the concept of man-made climate change the distortion of scientific studies seems like something that everybody can agree is wrong. So much of science is funded by govt grants. The idea that everything must conform to the view of the current administration or it is not worth funding seems dangerous and economically limiting.
If the staff of any government agency is increased by 1000, will results improve? How about by 10,000 or 100,000? Does it take 1 Million? Is there anything wrong with cutting what isn't helping or is redundant and applying those funds where they are needed more?
Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Horrible comic and completely misses the point. Trump was voted in by coal miners. Coal Miners whose jobs have been slipping away and towns devastated by the "Heroin Epidemic" https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/white-death... https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/the-h... Continuing to ignore rural America will only make them more angry and continue to vote in assholes like Trump. Clint…
47% of votes went to Trump. I don't think 47% of American voters are coal miners. Focusing on them seems exaggerated.
Unfortunately, the popular vote doesn't matter.
Clinton lost Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Michigan, the entire damn south (aside from New Mexico), etc. etc.
If Clinton had slightly better showing with manufacturing-based southerners or the energy sector, she would have won.