The suzerain Trump

[Brian Peacock]

Is it? Propaganda? Well, the Trump administration will give the AGW people the chance to deal with this propaganda in a public forum. Surely that can only be a good thing.

The AGW people?

Oh, you mean scientists.

They've already dealt with them in court and won easily.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... e-and-lost

It shouldn't have to be their job to stamp out little fires. They've real, and important work to do which they should be allowed do without hindrance from a hostile government, or threat of defunding.

Exactly. You don't have to take a political view on climate science just as you don't have to take a political view on evolution, or quantum mechanics, or material science, or aerodynamics, or geology, or cell mitosis, or carbon chemistry etc etc etc... Science has an in-built mechanism for discarding bad models, hypotheses, theories, laws, conjectures and inferences - it's called 'Show me the data and I'll try an point out where you're wrong', or, peer review. It doesn't depend on whether someone votes right or left, prefers bacon to cheese, or listens to Country music or Jazz - and it certainly doesn't depend on whether someone asserts this-or-that moral principle over another or feels threatened or challenged by what they're being shown.

Science is just science. It furnishes us with knowledge. Sure, what we might do, or not do, with knowledge may depend on politics, both personal and nation and international. Politics is about choices for action after all: "What should we do about X?" But to wilfully belittle, downplay, or just downright lie about science and what it shows, and to do so in order to secure or enhance political or economic power, simple marks one out as someone who holds that the facts can, should and must be determine by one's opinion and beliefs - in other words, an ideologue.

If the answer to the question "What should we do about global warming?" is, "Absolutely nothing," then why not just say that? The problem, of course, comes with the follow-up questions: "If it's in our power to do something then why should we do nothing?" The denialists stock response to this is to go on the offensive and cast this as a battle over opinions and values rather than a question of whether we should acknowledge or ignore unpalatable facts, and why. This is very telling I think.

So, basically, if anyone wants to dispute climate science then dispute climate science - simply provide some robust data sets and a sound, critical argument relevant to that data. If climate scientists have got it wrong they'll amend their models and then carry on doing science. Moral outrage and deliberate misrepresentation just doesn't cut it, and one wonders as to the mindset and motivation of those who will dispute and decry the acquisition of knowledge on that basis.

[Jason]

It means a lot of people support Trump's questioning of the science of AGW and it can only be a good thing to allow the denialists the chance to air their grievances on behalf of these same people so they can be addressed in a forum people seem to pay attention to - that being the political one. The only reason to be upset by it is if you have doubts about it yourself and suspect policy might take a turn as these possible failings are brought to light.

But that isn't a worry - AGW is rock solid. Right?

[Animavore]

The parallels with ID/creationism, taking their ideas to court, instead of into the scientific forum, isn't lost on me either.

[Animavore]

It means a lot of people support Trump's questioning of the science of AGW and it can only be a good thing to allow the denialists the chance to air their grievances on behalf of these same people so they can be addressed in a forum people seem to pay attention to - that being the political one.

Which grievances are they? Why is is a good thing? Why is going to the political forum better than going to the scientific one if you believe you have a valid argument? You're not making yourself clear.

The only reason to be upset by it is if you have doubts about it yourself and suspect policy might take a turn as these possible failings are brought to light.

Or maybe I just have an utter disliking to lying shills who only want to obfuscate and prevaricate while their employers wreak environmental havoc without much challenge.

But that isn't a worry - AGW is rock solid. Right?

The worry is that action toward climate change will be kicked down the road yet again while these pointless debates are going on. The scientists have already won in court because the case against was so weak and the denialists' arguments so incoherent. They'll win the next time, and the next, and the next if it goes that far. They've been winning the scientific argument since 1988, which is why denialists are going after them in the political sphere instead of presenting their papers.
Meanwhile nothing gets done.

[Brian Peacock]

It means a lot of people support Trump's questioning of the science of AGW and it can only be a good thing to allow the denialists the chance to air their grievances on behalf of these same people so they can be addressed in a forum people seem to pay attention to - that being the political one. The only reason to be upset by it is if you have doubts about it yourself and suspect policy might take a turn as these possible failings are brought to light.

But that isn't a worry - AGW is rock solid. Right?

Yep, as solid as science gets - bearing in mind that the strength of science is that it deals in provisional truths not absolutes. Carbon chemistry is pretty robust, so therefore are the theories about the effect of carbon in the atmosphere, and so are the models about how much carbon and other green house gases humans are putting into the atmosphere. The models that predict global temperature become more refined and robust each year as they draw from larger sets of data, as are the meteorological models which predict climatic effects from local weather system to hemispherical patterns. Yep, all the evidence points to human activity as having a significant impact on the global climate. This is not secret information, it's all out there in the science press - you can find it with google or by subscribing to this-or-that feed, podcast, Youtube channel, or email newsletter.

So sure, lets have a debate - or more correctly, lets continue the ongoing debate about what we can, should or must do about the effects science is showing that we've had and are having on the global climate. We know what we know, so let's have a debate about we should do with that information (even as Trump et al are trying to pinch it off at source), because the current models predict a bleak future ahead, not on geological time scales but within two generations, or maybe less, if we don't do something now. But is that the kind of debate Trump is going it chair, or is he going to continue obfuscating the issue for the sake of political expediency? And I see that as the basic motivation of climate science denialist here - expediency - an attitude that they can have tomorow's jam today but everyone's children will have to pay for it, whatever the cost.

[pErvinalia]

It means whatever you want it to mean! Just move your troublesome data collection stations to better fit your conclusions! Massage that apparatus.

Again. What does that even mean?

Canada is cold therefore global warming is a hoax.

[pErvinalia]

It means a lot of people support Trump's questioning of the science of AGW and it can only be a good thing to allow the denialists the chance to air their grievances on behalf of these same people so they can be addressed in a forum people seem to pay attention to - that being the political one. The only reason to be upset by it is if you have doubts about it yourself and suspect policy might take a turn as these possible failings are brought to light.

But that isn't a worry - AGW is rock solid. Right?

Scientifically it is. But not politically. And particularly not man-child and his followers politically.

[Tero]

If we listened to scientists, there would not be 7.5 billion of us. Capitalism on the other hand requires population growth.

[Animavore]

[Omarosa, Apprentice Contestant]“Every critic, every detractor, will have to bow down to President Trump,” she said. "It’s everyone who’s ever doubted Donald, who ever disagreed, who ever challenged him. It is the ultimate revenge to become the most powerful man in the universe.”
Manigault, Trump’s director of African-American outreach, made the prediction in an interview for a PBS “Frontline" special on the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner.

http://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in ... own-to-him

It's not fucking Game of Thrones.

[Brian Peacock]

The Thane Of Groans more like.





I'll get my coat...

[Tero]

Time for one of Trumps to shoot him. Otherwise we are paying for his wall:

Robert Reich:
Trump tweets this morning that “The dishonest media does not report that any money spent on building the Great Wall (for sake of speed), will be paid back by Mexico later!”

Rubbish.

1. The cost of building a wall along the entire border with Mexico is estimated to be between $20 billion to $25 billion. This is a huge sum. Right now, the U.S. is spending an estimated $4 billion a year on border security. A 2013 proposal to spend $46 billion on border security over the next decade failed to pass Congress.

2. Mexico won’t reimburse the U.S. for it. The Mexican public is solidly against the wall, against Trump, and against any Mexican politician who even suggests cooperating with this absurd plan.

3. So it will have to come out of our pockets. According to CNN and the Associated Press, Trump’s transition team has already spoken with Republican Congressional leaders about funding the wall through the appropriations process. Meanwhile, Trump's and Ryan's tax plan means the rich and corporations will pay less taxes, which means the cost of building the wall will have to come out of the pockets of the middle and working class -- or else we'll have bigger budget deficits, or else Republicans will have to cut Medicare and Social Security.

4. It’s an bonkers idea to begin with. Illegal immigration from Mexico into the United States has been falling steadily for several years. A wall won’t stop it, anyway.

Trump becomes president 2 weeks from today. He continues to lie, call the media that criticizes his lies “dishonest,” and push xenophobic plans like this wall. We must #resisttrump.

What do you think?

[L'Emmerdeur]

People are gearing up for that. Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda

[Brian Peacock]

...
What do you think?

I think The Wall was a high-profile, campaign-defining political commitment that's going to be very difficult to dodge - particularly with a GOP majority. Nonetheless, there's plenty of ways to get the Mexicans to pay for it: a high phone tariff for US to Mexico calls, an employer surcharge for employing Mexicans, or an emergency tax on tacos, refried beans, men's hair cream, sombreros, mariachi bands, and money transfers from the US to Mexico.

"We don't need no education,
We don't need no birth control,
No evolution in the class room,
Hey! Leftie! Leave the Prez alone!"

[Tyrannical]

Mexicans blame Trump for stealing jobs Of course, our left wing says Trump had nothing to do with it


http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/06/media ... s-america/

Media outlets ran an Associated Press story Friday that outlined just how terrible President-elect Donald Trump will be … for Mexican jobs.

Mexican reporter Christopher Sherman wrote the story for The AP, and high-profile outlets like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Miami Herald, the Chicago Tribune, and Business Insider all ran the story, alongside countless smaller news organizations nationwide.

The piece shares stories of Mexicans upset with decisions by Ford and Carrier, which recently announced investments in U.S.-based plants in lieu of planned investments in Mexico. Ford announced it would cancel a $1.6 billion car plant investment in the northern part of Mexico.

The proposed plant would have hired 2,800 Mexicans, and the resulting economic boost would have added 10,000 jobs to the region, according to the report.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/06/media ... z4V4XuoZX5

[Scot Dutchy]

Is The man-child going to keep on tweeting when he is in office like a millennial. Social media is a drug. It releases endorphins which give people a high.



Cant someone explain to him that he is 70 years old and President of the United States of America.

He better go to rehab.