Slashdot Mirror
Trump Picks Top Climate Skeptic To Lead EPA Transition (cbsnews.com)
Billly Gates writes: Trump's transition team is steamrolling ahead to transition the government. Trump chose Myron Ebell to oversee environmental policies. Myron Ebell is chairman of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a group of climate change denialists and alarmists. Scientific American provides some background information about Ebell in a report from earlier this year: "In a biography submitted when he testified before Congress, he listed among his recognitions that he had been featured in a Greenpeace 'Field Guide to Climate Criminals,' dubbed a 'misleader' on global warming by Rolling Stone and was the subject of a motion to censure in the British House of Commons after Ebell criticized the United Kingdom's chief scientific adviser for his views on global warming. More recently, Ebell has called the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan for greenhouse gases illegal and said that Obama joining the Paris climate treaty 'is clearly an unconstitutional usurpation of the Senate's authority.' He told Vanity Fair in 2007, 'There has been a little bit of warming ... but it's been very modest and well within the range for natural variability, and whether it's caused by human beings or not, it's nothing to worry about.' Ebell's views appear to square with Trump's when it comes to EPA's agenda. Trump has called global warming 'bullshit' and he has said he would 'cancel' the Paris global warming accord and roll back President Obama's executive actions on climate change."
Well the white baby boomers have now solved the problem of leaving a shitty planet to the next generation ... they are going to help end it themselves.by electing trump and his clown show. They don't give a crap they won't be around in 10-15 years anyway. They just want to go out on top, even if noone is left to see it.
The article is so non-newsworthy that I have NO reaction except "Of course." Alt-Right has the Trump card and they are going to play it hard until the rest of us drown.
I'm only reminded of a prediction webpage I wrote when Dubya staggered into the White House. My predictions were kind of broad, divided into the categories of education, federal courts, economy, environment, military, war, Internet, and public trust in government. No details, but just probabilities and some wild estimates of recovery times. Back then I though I was just being a gloomy Gus, but looking over the predictions after 15 years, it now makes me look like a Pollyanna with rose-colored glasses. Is it worth making such an effort for the Donald?
Right now a question of some interest to me is how long it will take the angry losers to learn they are still losers. Might make them angrier, but of course no one really cares about losers, especially losers who were stupid enough to believe silly promises for a vote. Even more obviously, no one cares about the mindless always-R (or always-D) voters. It's the cold-blooded haters who worry me.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
People don't stop breeding,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Actually, between education, economics, and so forth, yeah they do. Several countries already have negative or neutral birthrates and are only net positive due to immigration.
There is no reason to beleive humans could not acheive equilibrium.
Oh, fuck you. The richest nation on the planet, with 4% of the population, produces a quarter of the world's pollution directly. And even the Indian and Chinese pollution you whine about is to power factories, producing your electronics and cheap shit for Wal-Mart for you to buy.
As I said in a thread the other day the policy is unfortunately a choice between the US starving itself of resources and energy while the world keeps moving, or we try our best to move forward with a different mindset. Pollution and deforestation is a bigger problem than CO2 emissions, yet the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues. They are more than happy to watch China build more and more polluting industry, and we even pay them to take all of our trash to dispose of as they see fit.
The power struggle is not simply a matter of fixing the West (US, UK, France) but a world wide issue. Are we demanding that the UAE stop destroying massive amounts of ocean with cool looking projects? Are we demanding that Saudi Arabia stop pumping oil? Why is it always one side being blamed by the people holding power? Then we get to hear all of he people claiming that the US needs to be punished, which if you wish to be an annex of China or Russia in the future is a good position to have.
Trump did tell people fair and square that he wanted deregulation to stimulate the wheezing and gasping US economy. That does not mean we stay that way forever, but in my opinion we could probably start with a clean slate given all of the cruft put into our regulations over the last 30 years.
Lets also not forget that a Free economy has a built in check and balance system. If you don't like pollution don't use products that pollute. People selling products will be forced to come up with better, cleaner solutions. Power plants product what people use, and very little more. Awareness and boycotts are very useful tools when used properly.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Meanwhile, I wonder Trump thinks he can cancel the Paris Climate Accord? WIll he take take some white out to cover over the names of the other signatories?
"a group of climate change denialists and alarmists."
The guy is a geologist, the enemy of WWF, Sierra club and Greenpeace. They explain that the climate is always changing because that is what humans have discovered after hundreds if not thousands of years of investigation. To toss that aside immediately because he disagrees with Obama's hand picked ex head of the UN WMO John Holdren?
But it also shows that you do not need to have any understanding of science, economics, history or even culture to post anything to /. and immediately assume it is correct.
Have these environmentalists proven there is a hot spot of CO2 feed backing heat to water vapour? UNSW has! They used wind-sheer off the coast of NSW to prove there is a hot spot over the equator. Sarcasm aside, no, we measure that area of air and it is either the same temperature or has actually decreased. Have you heard? If you havnt, you've been reading the MSM and /. and soylent news. It is as if these places are gatekept for consistency of this unproven science.
The inability to think is anti-science. Anti-philosophy. It is parallel to the inquisition where society all agreed that WITCHES caused the climate to change. These people need to be locked up before they ruin more lives on imaginary quests which only require more of your money to make happen - otherwise we'll threaten your children's unborn children with unjustifiable temperature or sea level rises. Or we'll rename man made global warming to something else and ask for twice the amount of money (83 trillion isnt enough?!)
Disgraceful.
People need to start thinking otherwise they will fall for other scams which use the same tricks.
If you want to save people, work out a plan to deal with a Carrington event (look it up) or the super volcano under Yellowstone. Those actually matter more, because they would be sudden catastrophes with immediate widespread consequences, not something that happens gradually so there is time to mitigate. Plus if Yellowstone happens, all your climate science and anti global warming measures go right out the window, because the ash in the air overrides it. Plan for those, THEN talk to me about global warming. It might be a problem, but it isn't the problem to worry about first.
The US needs energy independence. Renewables are now providing some of the cheapest electricity (recent bids for offshore wind power in Europe are at levels below electricity from coal). Renewables employs more people than fossil fuels in the USA. Renewables don't rely on a politically unstable region of the world, where the US has had to spend huge resources to ensure continued supplies.
We need oil today, but our investment should be in renewables. Focusing on fossil fuels is not an economically sound decision, even if you discount global climate change.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
IF global warming is anthropogenic then it is a direct function of population size.
Nonsense. We could build things to last and keep them longer. We could use more insulation so that we use less heating oil. We could make hay while the sun shines not just literally but also in manufacturing so that we can use more wind power and the like which goes through production cycles. It's affected by population size, but there's a whole lot of other factors. Right now the primary driver is greed.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So let me get this straight. If you lived on a street where several of your neighbors were murderers, your solution wouldn't be to try to get them put away, your solution would be to grab an ax and join them in the frenzy?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Or we could just move to alternative energy sources? Why in the fuck should we spend untold trillions on engineering the climate just so we can keep burning oil, when we could, you know, stop burning fucking oil.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Pollution and deforestation is a bigger problem than CO2 emissions, yet the same groups wanting to take your cash for carbon put forth no projects or proposals to deal with those issues.
From which orifice did you pull that "fact"?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
No, it's a direct function of the aggregate amount of heat-trapping gasses put into the atmosphere by all of the people on earth. If you could magically lower the rate of population growth to zero or below tomorrow, yet at the same time more and more of the developing world adopts more carbon energy demanding western lifestyles, you still won't have fixed the problem. Conversely, if we could magically make it so that we could have an equivalent lifestyle on a small fraction of the carbon-producing energy we use now, we could still maintain population growth with greatly reduced carbon output.
I'm not arguing in favor of continued population growth, anything but. But population alone is not the driving factor.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Don't bother looking when you're crossing the road because an an aeroplane might crash on your head. So develop a man portable air warning radar THEN think about getting new glasses.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
If you were really tolerant, then you'd be understanding and accepting of someone who DOESN'T believe in gay people.
You're happy to accept people who think like you do, but you can't imagine it is acceptable to think otherwise. That is your great flaw.
That is why Trump won. Until you understand that, you will continue to have problems on the right.
Trump didn't win by getting 10% or 20% of the country to vote for him, he got 48%, which is more or less half. And yet you dismiss half the country as "deplorables" and wonder why you lost...
That's such a rich post I don't even know where to start. For starters, we have a pretty strict separation of church and state - you cannot cite religion as a reason for influence in any decision. Saying marriage should be strictly between a man and a woman because you're a Christian is acceptable if a Muslim can require you to read the Quaran, because it's against his beliefs for people not to read it. To build on this, you can do whatever the hell you want with your life - if you are gay and chose not to act on it or accept it, that's entirely your choice, and I support your right to make it. In exchange, you have no right to fuck with someone else's life, and if somebody else's freedom of expression bother you so much that you took the time in your life to write not one but two rants on a website, immigrate to Iran or Saudi Arabia. They're more in line with your values than the United States of America is.
Secondly, that is a completely bullshit pivot from my point. I asked you for proof of your statement, and you dodge by trying an ad hominem on me. You either give me the evidence I require, or you look like an idiot spouting bullshit, which increasingly I suspect you are. Now, which is it?
"Set a man a fire, he'll be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
You are the perfect example of the intolerant left, you claim to be all accepting, but you're really not.
Tolerance of intolerance is not tolerance. It's accepting abuse.
In my experience, the left is FAR more xenophobic and intolerant than the right is,
Get back to me when the left goes back to lynching people, or dragging them behind pick-em-up trucks. The right never stopped.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"