Trump's first yes man is Myron Ebell. 97% of scientists believe in climate change, but Trump does not. So he is appointing a guy who will never tell him lifting environmental regulations has potentially dangerous side effects on air, water and/or soil. Safe to assume there are no objections to this and the usual suspects believe that 97% of the world's scientists are wrong?
This is one more reason not to like Trump. There is no way 97% of scientists can be wrong about climate change. Even people who never went to college can figure it out.
Keep in mind appointments mean nothing until the Senate approves them. Barack Obama appointed a replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia. We will never get that person in the Supreme Court.
If 97% of the media was wrong, 97% of scientists can be wrong
Quote:If 97% of the media was wrong, 97% of scientists can be wrong
Unlike the media, which makes a living by throwing darts at the wall and reporting whatever they hit as fact, scientists actually have to demonstrate a proficiency in something before being given a grand stage.
Can 97% of scientists be wrong? Sure. Are they? No [BLEEP] way in hell.
Start by building the Keystone pipeline. Put people in the energy industry back to work. Make America great again.
Quote:Unlike the media, which makes a living by throwing darts at the wall and reporting whatever they hit as fact, scientists actually have to demonstrate a proficiency in something before being given a grand stage.
Can 97% of scientists be wrong? Sure. Are they? No [BAD WORD REMOVED] way in hell.
I was kidding, but I gotta ask. Where does one even begin to address global warming?
Is it the job of a sitting president whose air plane contributes to global warming while campaigning for a candidate on the tax payers dime a good place to start?
Where does it start?
Quote:Unlike the media, which makes a living by throwing darts at the wall and reporting whatever they hit as fact, scientists actually have to demonstrate a proficiency in something before being given a grand stage.
Can 97% of scientists be wrong? Sure. Are they? No [BAD WORD REMOVED] way in hell.
I doubt you, JDub, or Kotite knows exactly what it is that 97% of "scientists" believe. Hint, it's not climate disaster.
Note also that the 97% number came from winnowing down nearly 10,000 scientists, to get 75 of 77 scientists who fit the elite requirements as well-published Climate Scientists, i.e. 77 scientists who heavily depend on the Global Warming gravy train of research funding.
Quote:I was kidding, but I gotta ask. Where does one even begin to address global warming?
By going after the main polluters. Get rid of electric plants powered by oil and coal and put up bigger, more efficient,
way, way cleaner nuclear reactors instead. Chase down the Americans and Deltas of the world that are keeping 35-40 year old airframes that puke out CO2 and build such strict regulations around aircraft emissions that they have no choice but to park them. Toughen emissions standards to force the gas guzzlers from 1975 into retirement over the course of several years.
Point being, there are ways to do this that don't involve making everyone into a tree-hugging hippie. Someone not wanting something to be the case doesn't mean that it shouldn't be aggressively addressed. So what if we're wrong and this whole warming cycle is natural? We've left a cleaner Earth behind than what we started it. And what if this cycle isn't natural and we do nothing? Whelp, as many a famous YouTuber would say, rip earth
So not believing in man made climate change means you're okay with polluting the air, water and soil? Yeah, makes total sense....
Quote:By going after the main polluters. Get rid of electric plants powered by oil and coal and put up bigger, more efficient, way, way cleaner nuclear reactors instead. Chase down the Americans and Deltas of the world that are keeping 35-40 year old airframes that puke out CO2 and build such strict regulations around aircraft emissions that they have no choice but to park them. Toughen emissions standards to force the gas guzzlers from 1975 into retirement over the course of several years.
Point being, there are ways to do this that don't involve making everyone into a tree-hugging hippie. Someone not wanting something to be the case doesn't mean that it shouldn't be aggressively addressed. So what if we're wrong and this whole warming cycle is natural? We've left a cleaner Earth behind than what we started it. And what if this cycle isn't natural and we do nothing? Whelp, as many a famous YouTuber would say, rip earth
Nice avatar. Hope it doesn't get you in trouble.
Quote:I doubt you, JDub, or Kotite knows exactly what it is that 97% of "scientists" believe. Hint, it's not climate disaster.
Note also that the 97% number came from winnowing down nearly 10,000 scientists, to get 75 of 77 scientists who fit the elite requirements as well-published Climate Scientists, i.e. 77 scientists who heavily depend on the Global Warming gravy train of research funding.
How many of the 10,000 believe in it (or against it)?
Quote:I was kidding, but I gotta ask. Where does one even begin to address global warming?
Is it the job of a sitting president whose air plane contributes to global warming while campaigning for a candidate on the tax payers dime a good place to start?
Where does it start?
Past presidents addressed climate change in a variety of ways. Private companies are benefiting from legislation that encourages shoppers to buy environmentally friendly products such as CFL bulbs. There are more animals listed as threatened or endangered because of climate change, most notably polar bears. Donald Trump's job begins with accepting the indisputable fact that 97% of scientists know. Only then can we trust him to appoint someone who believes what almost every scientist knows about climate change.
This 97% thing reminds me of a Geico commercial. How much longer before Trump gets a 97%
dissatisfaction rating?
Monetary gain will always supersede the threat of global warming.
Quote:Nice avatar. Hope it doesn't get you in trouble.
Thanks for reminding me to change it. Election's over, time to move on and figure out what we've got in Trump.
Quote:I doubt you, JDub, or Kotite knows exactly what it is that 97% of "scientists" believe. Hint, it's not climate disaster.
Note also that the 97% number came from winnowing down nearly 10,000 scientists, to get 75 of 77 scientists who fit the elite requirements as well-published Climate Scientists, i.e. 77 scientists who heavily depend on the Global Warming gravy train of research funding.
What 97% of scientists believe is humans caused climate change. I don't know where you got those numbers from, but the people who say climate change is unnatural are correct.
Quote:So not believing in man made climate change means you're okay with polluting the air, water and soil? Yeah, makes total sense....
What is your stance. Exists or make believe?
Quote:What is your stance. Exists or make believe?
I don't have an issue with a man made climate change argument, although I'm not sure what that has to do with what I asked.
Quote:I don't have an issue with a man made climate change argument, although I'm not sure what that has to do with what I asked.
First, do you ever not use snark?
I don't typically involve myself in climate change discussions. I really find it boring to research. Thats what environmental engineering is for. I was just digging into your question further and wondered where you fall in the argument.
Good, about time someone with a brain got into that agency.
the climate is always changing, in 20 years we will be saying the earth is cooling, guarantee it