The Reign of Trump

[Brian Peacock]

Love seeing all the Trump supporters getting dumped on as Trump fills the swamp full of alligators and goes back on everything he said.
Even funnier is seeing that they are too stupid to realise it even when Trump tells them to their face he lied.
They're all getting absolutely everything they deserve and it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.

Damn, getting the last laugh actually feels good. I can't stay mad.

The guy hasn't even become President yet, and he's gone back on everything he said? LOL.

Yeah ,that damn Trump. Failing to achieve his goals 30 days before he's elected....

Hmm. So everything a candidate says they'll do before the election counts for nothing after they've been elected eh?

[Animavore]

Right. So Trump hasn't completely gone back on impeaching Hilary or his promises to drain the swamp by appointing pieces of shit like Goldman Sachs appointees, or these incredibly dangerous climate denialist assholes below, to his cabinet.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... e-skeptics

No doubt some Trump-supporting waster will be along soon to try defend indefensible shit above.

Can't beat that Trump supporter delusion. Only thing more delusional is Trump himself.

[Tero]

Well, no, he is much more right wing than Hillary. That was clear from the start. It's just the working class idiots that voted got bamboozeled.

[Animavore]

Oh and since that article in The Guardian above Rex Tillerman actually has been appointed as Secretary of State. I mean he literally picked this guy.

[Animavore]

[Brian Peacock]

The eagerness to appoint science deniers to areas of government which fundamentally exist within empirical bounds simply highlights what Trump and his business partners think about their wider responsibilities: "Fuck the facts - making money is the only good!"

[Animavore]

There's something very Louis XVI about the whole thing.

[Animavore]

Department of Energy Tells Trump to Go Screw Himself

Last week, Donald Trump’s transition team asked the Department of Energy for a list of staff and contractors who have worked on policies around climate change. The move was unusual and led to speculation that the Trump team was looking to purge the agency of people who accept the established science on climate change. Well, the Department of Energy is responding. And it more or less is telling Trump to go screw himself.

Donald Trump has repeatedly said that he doesn’t accept the scientific fact that humans are contributing to catastrophic changes in the world’s climate. In fact, he once said that climate change was a hoax invented by China. (China denies this.) So the Trump transition team’s list of 74 questions were naturally met with a bit of resistance at the DOE.

“I can’t recall that I’ve ever seen anything like this,” one employee of the DOE who’s worked at the agency for 20 years told the Washington Post. “I guess there is a first time for everything.”

http://gizmodo.com/department-of-energy ... 1790044894

At least there's hope that Trump and his cronies won't simply be able to wreck havoc as they think they can.

[Brian Peacock]

Remember John Selwyn Gummer during the BSE crisis? He repeatedly returned to the point that no scientist had identified a link between eating mad-cows and CJD - simply because no science had been done on that possible route of contagion in humans at the time. Now, if the government doesn't commission any research then I guess they can say that no scientists disagree with them, and therefore they can use the cloak of the spectre of science, like Gummer did, to assert that there's nothing to worry about.

Also, it doesn't matter if you think humans are responsible for global warming or not (although the science is incontrovertible), the climate is changing, the sea is rising, and seasonal weather patterns are shifting in all hemispheres. One would imagine that planning and mitigation would be on the agenda regardless of whether blame can be or is attached to humans, or not. But again, if there's nobody in government to say these things then perhaps it can be sidelined or ignored completely. The King must not be told he's stark, bollock nakkid.

Old rich guys with a thirst for power but who will, to a man, be dead in 20 years are not the right people to be making these kinds of decisions for their grandchildren's future.

[Animavore]

You can't really plan for mitigation without accepting humans are behind it. Otherwise what's the point of divesting from fossil? Unless you mean mitigation like building dykes, but that's not really going to cut it, unless we are only thinking about slightly more adaptable human life and not caring about the natural world that will be destroyed. But thinking like that will destroy us inevitably as we need the natural world to sustain us.

It's easy to say adapt or die, but when I get the feeling what you mean by that is let the disasters come, those who are more thrifty or better placed (ie. not as poor) might be able to simply move around for a bit, avoiding the worst, I can only think that you're an utterly callous arsehole who I hope gets run over by a sliding glacier. We can adapt much better by understanding the cause and changing our life and energy policies away from causing so much of it. It's simply much easier to control than patching up all the holes in our defenses.

[Brian Peacock]

You can't really plan for mitigation without accepting humans are behind it. Otherwise what's the point of divesting from fossil? Unless you mean mitigation like building dykes, but that's not really going to cut it, unless we are only thinking about slightly more adaptable human life and not caring about the natural world that will be destroyed. But thinking like that will destroy us inevitably as we need the natural world to sustain us.

It's easy to say adapt or die, but when I get the feeling what you mean by that is let the disasters come, those who are more thrifty or better placed (ie. not as poor) might be able to simply move around for a bit, avoiding the worst, I can only think that you're an utterly callous arsehole who I hope gets run over by a sliding glacier. We can adapt much better by understanding the cause and changing our life and energy policies away from causing so much of it. It's simply much easier to control than patching up all the holes in our defenses.

Chemistry is a robust subject and someone should be telling government it needs to dial back the release of carbon and other GHGs into the atmosphere in light of the situation on the ground (well, in the air), in light of the facts as we currently know them. The global warming deniers go to great efforts to persuade people that if global warming isn't caused by humans then it also, somehow, isn't even happening. The planning and mitigation isn't dyke building or taking to the hills - its planning for a new energy strategy and its being prepared to mobilise the resource of the state (and indeed the world) to limit, as far a possible, the adverse consequences of what is happening now.

What I'm saying is that you can be an agnostic on the matter of human-caused global warming and you still have to do something about it today in order to limit its effects tomorrow.

[L'Emmerdeur]

What I'm saying is that you can be an agnostic on the matter of human-caused global warming and you still have to do something about it today in order to limit its effects tomorrow.

I don't think so. If you're "agnostic" on the matter, and you're convinced that efforts to limit the effects of a phenomenon whose existence you doubt or deny are in reality subversive attempts at massive wealth redistribution, you will actively oppose those efforts. As well, if you're an "agnostic" and your primary goal is and always has been enriching yourself, you may consider those efforts to be nothing but obstructive. That's not even taking into account those whose ideology requires them to oppose anything that "libtards" support.

[JimC]

There's something very Louis XVI about the whole thing.

Apres moi le deluge...

[DaveDodo007]

Remember John Selwyn Gummer during the BSE crisis? He repeatedly returned to the point that no scientist had identified a link between eating mad-cows and CJD - simply because no science had been done on that possible route of contagion in humans at the time. Now, if the government doesn't commission any research then I guess they can say that no scientists disagree with them, and therefore they can use the cloak of the spectre of science, like Gummer did, to assert that there's nothing to worry about.

Also, it doesn't matter if you think humans are responsible for global warming or not (although the science is incontrovertible), the climate is changing, the sea is rising, and seasonal weather patterns are shifting in all hemispheres. One would imagine that planning and mitigation would be on the agenda regardless of whether blame can be or is attached to humans, or not. But again, if there's nobody in government to say these things then perhaps it can be sidelined or ignored completely. The King must not be told he's stark, bollock nakkid.

Old rich guys with a thirst for power but who will, to a man, be dead in 20 years are not the right people to be making these kinds of decisions for their grandchildren's future.

The grandchildren will be fine, what's climate change when you have 37 pronouns, intersectionality, feminism, SJWism, BLM, otherkin and headmates. I mean all those gender studies, liberal arts, sociology and communication degrees will sure come in useful.

[pErvinalia]

Nice deflection. The subject is climate change denial by old conservatives, and you manage to make it about so called "cucks".