Anti-Trump Hysteria and Silliness

[Velo Vol]

"Libertarian"

 

[luthervol]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-board/index.html

Pruitt removes scientists from key EPA board. Trump marches on.....for a little while longer.

 

[volprof]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-board/index.html

Pruitt removes scientists from key EPA board. Trump marches on.....for a little while longer.

He's got to do Pootie's work to implode the US before he gets the great big ole' patriotic boot.

 

[Grand Vol]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/08/politics/epa-scott-pruitt-board/index.html

Pruitt removes scientists from key EPA board. Trump marches on.....for a little while longer.

Did not renew half the sitting scientists. From the article:

The EPA relies heavily on the scientific guidance of the group when it comes to air and water quality when making policy decisions. An EPA spokesman told CNN there are a total of 18 positions on this particular advisory board, and nine of those scientists were not renewed following the end of their three-year term.

In an emailed statement the EPA said, "EPA received hundreds of nominations to serve on the board, and we want to ensure fair consideration of all the nominees -- including those nominated who may have previously served on the panel -- and carry out a competitive nomination process."

The EPA spokesperson said the agency wanted scientists from a more diverse background, including scientists from industry.

Some of the current scientists on the board received notification via email that they would not be reappointed.

Because having the same scientists on the government dole year after year is obviously warranted. Having a diverse panel? So unacceptable! SCREECH!

 

[luthervol]

Did not renew half the sitting scientists. From the article:



Because having the same scientists on the government dole year after year is obviously warranted. Having a diverse panel? So unacceptable! SCREECH!

I think we all know what's going on. I think we all know what type of "scientist" he wishes to have on the board. And I think we all know what the globally recognized legitimate scientific community thinks. We can play word games, but they fool no one. I take that back, the word games obviously fool many...but not most.

 

[Grand Vol]

I think we all know what's going on. I think we all know what type of "scientist" he wishes to have on the board. And I think we all know what the globally recognized legitimate scientific community thinks. We can play word games, but they fool no one. I take that back, the word games obviously fool many...but not most.

So, you advocate having a panel of everyone that thinks the same way in government?

I'll remind you of that if the SCOTUS goes to a 6-3 or 7-2 conservative majority.

 

[luthervol]

So, you advocate having a panel of everyone that thinks the same way in government?

I'll remind you of that if the SCOTUS goes to a 6-3 or 7-2 conservative majority.

I would advocate for a panel of the leading scientists in the field, which in no way is what Pruitt is trying to do. If all of the leading scientists have reached the same conclusions, maybe that should tell you something. If all of the leading scientists have not reached the same conclusion, a representative mixture is what you're looking to get. Pruitt is going to select oil/gas friendly "scientist". Kind of like Marlboro trotting out the doctor that said smoking is not linked to cancer.

 

[volfanhill]

I would advocate for a panel of the leading scientists in the field, which in no way is what Pruitt is trying to do. If all of the leading scientists have reached the same conclusions, maybe that should tell you something. If all of the leading scientists have not reached the same conclusion, a representative mixture is what you're looking to get. Pruitt is going to select oil/gas friendly "scientist". Kind of like Marlboro trotting out the doctor that said smoking is not linked to cancer.

The leading scientists don't all agree. Stop with that nonsense. Several have called how their work as interpreted as wrong.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nati...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/amp/

 

[Jxn Vol]

I would advocate for a panel of the leading scientists in the field, which in no way is what Pruitt is trying to do. If all of the leading scientists have reached the same conclusions, maybe that should tell you something. If all of the leading scientists have not reached the same conclusion, a representative mixture is what you're looking to get. Pruitt is going to select oil/gas friendly "scientist". Kind of like Marlboro trotting out the doctor that said smoking is not linked to cancer.

Who decides who are "leading" scientists? Too subjective.

 

[MG1968]

I would advocate for a panel of the leading scientists in the field, which in no way is what Pruitt is trying to do. If all of the leading scientists have reached the same conclusions, maybe that should tell you something. If all of the leading scientists have not reached the same conclusion, a representative mixture is what you're looking to get. Pruitt is going to select oil/gas friendly "scientist". Kind of like Marlboro trotting out the doctor that said smoking is not linked to cancer.

You're implying that the chemical engineers, hydrologists, geologists, etc. that work for oil companies aren't real scientists just because they work for oil companies.

 

[luthervol]

The leading scientists don't all agree. Stop with that nonsense. Several have called how their work as interpreted as wrong.

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.nati...ge-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/amp/

I never said they did, but the vast majority certainly agree. That's why I said there should be a representative mixture. Which means on a panel of 18 scientists, maybe 2 or 3 at most would have views with which Trump (through Pruitt) is wishing to stack the EPA.

 

[luthervol]

You're implying that the chemical engineers, hydrologists, geologists, etc. that work for oil companies aren't real scientists just because they work for oil companies.

Not at all, but they will not be the ones appointed.

 

[volfanhill]

I never said they did, but the vast majority certainly agree. That's why I said there should be a representative mixture. Which means on a panel of 18 scientists, maybe 2 or 3 at most would have views with which Trump (through Pruitt) is wishing to stack the EPA.

"If all the leading scientists have reached the same conclusion"


Isn't that what you said?

 

[luthervol]

You're implying that the chemical engineers, hydrologists, geologists, etc. that work for oil companies aren't real scientists just because they work for oil companies.

There were many doctors and medical studies commissioned by the tobacco industry that tied smoking to cancer. These legitimate doctors and studies were not the ones the industry paraded in front of the public and congress. They found the one that would sell his soul for money while still maintaining a semblance of legitimacy. This is what big oil/energy will do through Trump/Pruitt. We all know how the game is played.....don't we?

 

[MG1968]

There were many doctors and medical studies commissioned by the tobacco industry that tied smoking to cancer. These legitimate doctors and studies were not the ones the industry paraded in front of the public and congress. They found the one that would sell his soul for money while still maintaining a semblance of legitimacy. This is what big oil/energy will do through Trump/Pruitt. We all know how the game is played.....don't we?

Sure, if this were the 1960's/70's when it was difficult to question the credentials of someone being propped up as an expert in a particular area.

 

[luthervol]

"If all the leading scientists have reached the same conclusion"


Isn't that what you said?

Followed by, "If all the leading scientists have not reached the same conclusion".

It obviously will be one or the other. The make up should reflect the leading scientists' conclusions. Don't you agree?

 

[Grand Vol]

There were many doctors and medical studies commissioned by the tobacco industry that tied smoking to cancer. These legitimate doctors and studies were not the ones the industry paraded in front of the public and congress. They found the one that would sell his soul for money while still maintaining a semblance of legitimacy. This is what big oil/energy will do through Trump/Pruitt. We all know how the game is played.....don't we?

So, on the opposite end of this we have a panel that is willing to sell their soul for their own beliefs. It's very hard to find an objective scientist in regards to the idea of climate change these days.

Furthermore, this two or three number you quoted can (likely will) get trumped) by the majority they oppose. Hence, if you had more balance, the outcome would/could be different.

 

[MG1968]

Followed by, "If all the leading scientists have not reached the same conclusion".

It obviously will be one or the other. The make up should reflect the leading scientists' conclusions. Don't you agree?

Except that the 97% consensus is a myth propagated by the Al Gore types of the world.

 

[volfanhill]

Followed by, "If all the leading scientists have not reached the same conclusion".

It obviously will be one or the other. The make up should reflect the leading scientists' conclusions. Don't you agree?

I stand corrected.

 

[luthervol]

Sure, if this were the 1960's/70's when it was difficult to question the credentials of someone being propped up as an expert in a particular area.

Look who we just appointed to head the EPA!!!! The most unqualified person in history, and much of the public was fine with that. Some of the public is obviously okay with overlooking credentials.

Trump has stated he wants to gut the EPA. Do you actually think he wants legitimate scientists on the board? He knows what they think....and he wants to deny their conclusions. He will stack the board with people that give him the best chance at plausible deniability. Earth and its future be dammed.

 

[Grand Vol]

Look who we just appointed to head the EPA!!!! The most unqualified person in history, and much of the public was fine with that. Some of the public is obviously okay with overlooking credentials.

Trump has stated he wants to gut the EPA. Do you actually think he wants legitimate scientists on the board? He knows what they think....and he wants to deny their conclusions. He will stack the board with people that give him the best chance at plausible deniability. Earth and its future be dammed.

Still doesn't change the fact your initial post on the matter is completely misleading.

"Pruitt removes scientists from panel."

When in reality it should have read:

"Pruitt does not renew the contracts of half the 18 member science board to allow for other members to step in."

Whether or not he nominates nine more bunny hugging, earth first types is another topic of conversation. But your hysteria, screeching and downright misleading in the initial post on the matter is what moved me to call out said screeching.

 

[lawgator1]

I guess both sides stack the deck, but its clear that someone in power, and I'm guessing this is not Trump personally, is going to war against the climate change community.

I'm guessing its Bannon plus Priebus, personally likely getting big bags of money from the fossil fuel folks.

 

[Grand Vol]

I guess both sides stack the deck, but its clear that someone in power, and I'm guessing this is not Trump personally, is going to war against the climate change community.

I'm guessing its Bannon plus Priebus, personally likely getting big bags of money from the fossil fuel folks.

For the past eight years, the climate change community has been at war against American industry. It's a double edged sword.

 

[ShowSomePride]

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

I'll leave this here. Also...

1. The need to be wary of conflating the opinions of non-experts vs experts. This is determined by several methods like analyzing peer-reviewed climate papers, analyzing citation patterns of relevant authors and related papers, surveying members of the relevant scientific community, among others..

2. Assuming that lack of confirmation equals dissent from the majority opinion. I see this occasionally from members of the board here.

 

[ShowSomePride]

For the past eight years, the climate change community has been at war against American industry. It's a double edged sword.

This is just a frankly poor statement. What does this even mean? Some of the largest energy companies like Shell and Exxon have significant research and investments in cleaner energy sources. Renewable energy is already a massive industry.