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."
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.
This is one of the scare pieces the media ran to frighten liberals into destroying trump.
The article was written BEFORE Tuesday.
And judging from the cesspool responses in this thread, I'm also going to be exiting from reading and commenting here.
Beau, you should be ashamed of yourself. Either you aren't doing your job and being an editor, or you are abusing your job and being a jackass.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
IF global warming is anthropogenic - WE ARE FUCKED. Sticking a carbon tax is like putting a toll on a toilet at a bar and expecting that people will stop peeing.
Under capitalism, taxing something is basically the best way we have to encourage people not to do it, especially if the money is spent cleaning up after the people who do the thing anyway. We have alternatives to carbon release (even if the alternative is just to fix as much as we emit) and if we don't take them, we're gonna have a bad time. It may not even be necessary for industry to have net zero carbon emissions; it may be that if we ratchet back substantially we'll find a stasis point at which we can reasonably operate.
There are alternatives to carbon release, and the free market will find them if you make carbon release expensive. You know what doesn't work, though? Cap and trade schemes. Carbon caps are helpful, but if you let people trade you miss the point entirely. If you tax, then alternatives will be found.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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!
Teach them scientists with their fancy book-learnin' a less, once and for all. Who's with me?
If ignorance was good enough for my daddy and my grandaddy before me, then by gum, it's good enough for me. Godspeed you Mr President.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Less funny longer time scale:
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx...
and it cost her Ohio. Coal's pretty worthless if you're not willing to allow massive pollution of the kind that has immediately negative consequences for people's quality of life. Sure, you can make steel with it instead of burning it for power, but there's a glut of Chinese steel that's not going away anytime soon.
The thing about Hilary is she wasn't going to make things better but she also wasn't going to make them worse. Trump will accelerate all the bad stuff while his running mate + supreme court picks take away women's reproductive rights. If you have a wife, girlfriend or daughter and no anything about the terror that is child birth left up to God's whim you know this is terrifying...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Of course Trump can cancel the Paris Climate Accord, at least for the US. The Senate never ratified it. It, in spite of being a treaty, was declared in force for the US on Obama's word alone. Trump's word alone can therefore repeal it.
1. The SA article is dated September 26, but the submitter carefully worded the opening sentence to make it sound like a post-election event ("Trump's transition team is steamrolling ahead to transition the government"). Those people we call "editors" either didn't check it or didn't care.
2. The SA article presents this as an absolute fact, but then essentially says "a little birdie told me so." Other sources (including one written today) are honest enough to call it what it is: a rumor.
Consider the scaling, on the scaling to the left our current trend would make for an almost vertical ascent.
According to Wikipedia he's got a BA in philosophy and a M.Sc in politics. Between getting out of school and setting himself as a climate expert he worked as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry.
He has never done anything STEM related or worked in any other field but politics.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So you get to decide which countries around the world have improper leaders, eh? What other countries should we invade on your suggestion?
Belgium. I vote for invading Belgium. I don't like their leader.
I guess if you get all your science "knowledge" from crappy magazines you are going to believe in a lot of things that. Did you invest in housing real estate in 2005 since Time said it was going to be awesome (http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101050613,00.html)?
Scientific papers were a tad different than your interpretation of them it would seem: http://aerosol.ucsd.edu/classe... there are some charts 9 pages in if you prefer pictures to words.
Probably they are betting on the chance, climate change won't affect them.. :D
1. If climate change doesn't happen, they won.
2. If climate change happens, it will destroy the liberals living on the coasts
Win-win situation.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry