Slashdot Mirror
Energy Department Refuses To Give Trump Team Names of People Who Worked On Climate Change (businessinsider.com)
The Department of Energy said Tuesday it will reject the request by President-elect Donald Trump's transition team to name staffers who worked on climate change programs. Energy spokesman Eben Burnhan-Snyder said the agency received "significant feedback" from workers regarding a questionnaire from the transition team that leaked last week. From a Reuters story, syndicated on BusinessInsider: The response from the Energy Department could signal a rocky transition for the president-elect's energy team and potential friction between the new leadership and the staffers who remain in place. The memo sent to the Energy Department on Tuesday and reviewed by Reuters last week contains 74 questions including a request for a list of all department employees and contractors who attended the annual global climate talks hosted by the United Nations within the last five years. "Our career workforce, including our contractors and employees at our labs, comprise the backbone of (the Energy Department) and the important work our department does to benefit the American people," Eben Burnham-Snyder, Energy Department spokesman said. "We are going to respect the professional and scientific integrity and independence of our employees at our labs and across our department," he added. "We will be forthcoming with all publicly available information with the transition team. We will not be providing any individual names to the transition team."
The management has to know this will get them sacked, and yet they still protected their team.
Good on them, and may they be showered by job offers once sacked.
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
The Most Transparent, Ever!(tm)
Good luck.... Refuse a lawful request from your new employer.
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
Come January 20th and the team stops being "transition team" and becomes "Executive Government". Though we'd rather not, we can wait 'till then...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Instead of just immediately refusing the request, has anyone bothered to ask the Trump Transition Team why they want the list? Everyone seems to think they want this so they can blacklist them. Maybe they want this so they can hire the proper people for certain cabinet positions. Especially to ask for the list this early in the game, it seems weird that it would be for a blacklist. Generally you would wait until you were in office to go after the opposition.
What color is the sky in the universe you live in?
I call it a witch hunt against scientists by evil men, enabled by morons like yourself.
CO2 won't stop magically absorbing solar radiation and heating the lower atmosphere just because Trump and his science-hating peons get rid of the scientists. The universe doesn't give one flying fuck about Donald Trump or some halfwit who goes around by the handle SuperKendall.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Gov: Whatcha huntin' Doc?
Trump: Ducks.
Gov: This is wabbit season.
Trump: Why. You. Little.... Grrrr (steam comes out of ears).
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The energy department has forgotten the meaning of the word "oversight."
It's not like this information can't be compiled from public information.
And anyway, due to civil service rules they can't be fired.
I mean, what is the DoE afraid of?
Trump has openly and repeatedly stated that he thinks climate change isn't real, and that it's a conspiracy. On at least one occasion, he directly attributed this conspiracy to the Chinese government. There really aren't very many reasons someone who thinks those things would want this information.
"Oh, and since the science is settled abuot climate change, the EPA obviously doesn't need anybody to research it... right?"
Actually since so many are rejecting facts, we need to keep proving the fact as many times as possible until it gets through their thick heads or they give up. If those that reject facts would get out of their feelings and look at the data for what it is, not what they want it to be, we could have stopped researching "is it happening" and we could be on , "how do we fix it." But as usual, science deniers are holding all progress back, because it just does not feel real.
"Science is the power of man"
Nothing Trump has said makes anybody think they would want this list for anything good. Trump is an ignorant, egotistical fool. I'm not even sure he means well, I think he's doing the whole president thing solely for his ego. While the backlash that would occur should the electoral college not install Trump would be massive, I think they would be fully justified in not voting for him. This is exactly why the electoral college exists, but it's unfortunate that there are no good alternatives to Trump right now. At least the alternatives wouldn't be doing it for their ego, and wouldn't be completely ignorant about pretty much everything.
And CO2 won't stop magically absorbing solar radiation and heating the lower atmosphere just because we keep hiring more scientists that keep telling us the same thing over and over again. We don't need thousands of researchers researching something on which there is basically broad consensus.
Where there isn't broad consensus is what to do about it. That's a tradeoff between economic growth and carbon emissions. Climate scientists are not qualified to speak to that, and their beliefs, opinions, or research results are irrelevant to that question.
The Trump team forgot to tell the DOE that they want the names so Governor Ooops can put them on his Christmas card list.
For many years now. Even the fossil fuel companies have known about AGW for four decades.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What it doesn't mean is the laws of physics will magically change.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
and rejects this monstrosity. Not likely, but that's the reason they exist.
Oh stop using common sense! You will just confuse quite a few people.
Science doesn't just stop. More research is always needed in virtually every area of research.
There's no real trade off. Don't start curbing CO2 emissions substantially now, and the cost to national and global economies in fifty years will be beyond astronomical.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"There are 3 managers that I will fire when I become Energy Secretary: Jane, Rick and... [pause] ...oops!"
Yes, modded insightful, because it actually supports science, instead of a pack of delicate right wing snowflakes that want a government that tells them happy stories about how CO2 doesn't lead to vast increases in energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
YOU'RE FIRED! let the tragic comedy commence!
Given the cult-like atmosphere at the EPA and the frankly abusive behavior towards the citizens it supposedly exists to protect I think some reduction in useless bloat is warranted.
The ghost of Richard Nixon still haunts the EPA.
Or lean that a government can't be run the same way as a business. "You're fired!" makes for reality TV, but it doesn't work that way in real life.
It looks a lot like nepotism, cronyism and imperialism to me... good thing those aren't elements of swamp water...
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
I am coming to the conclusion that I just don't give a crap. If people want to bury their heads in the sand and say "nothing is out of the ordinary and let's just continue business as usual", let them.
I'll be dead long before this stuff hits the fan anyway. I don't have any kids so... really, why should I care?
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
I wonder what the US situation with respect to international relationships will look like in 4 years time.
When I first heard that Trump had won, my first thought was, how much damage could he really do?
As I see what he is doing, it seems a lot. ;)
Take for example China. Most of the EU countries have already privately told China that they will follow the status quo regardless of that Trump does or says.
Most of the world is pretty angry about the anti-climate change stuff and there is already talk about locking the US out of the market.
Naturally this would have a huge impact on EU companies as well.
The more I see what this ass hat is doing though, the more I think this is really a turning point for the US and its decline in prominence from the world stage. I guess that is natural. Countries come and go, rise a fall. I do not imagine that will stop just because it is the present.
It is not just about climate change either. Heck, he is even gutting the FCC and forbidding them to protect consumers. Remember how the FCC made those carriers stop the millions in over billing? Those days are over.
The carriers, under Trump will literally be able to do what ever they want.
I have customers who cant wait for Trump because they think they can stop testing their devices for the US market and just sell it.
Still, I really do wish those of you in the US the best of luck. There is a good chance though that you fuckballs screwed us all. At least we dont have to worry about your F35 shooting down our planes though
You're the delicate little snowflake
"Oooh noooo, science says we're doing something bad, but i'm a whittle baby and want my cheap dirty energy! Science bad!"
We're fucked, and it's because of contemptible even morons like you.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
> You also have yet to prove why 2C (current prediction) of potential warming does anything except bring unprecedented prosperity to humanity.
The 6 meters of sea-level rise that will eventually happen as a consequence of 2C in temperature increase will put major parts of coastal areas underwater.
common sense != naivity
Name calling! The cornerstone of every logically-based argument!
And CO2 won't stop magically absorbing solar radiation and heating the lower atmosphere just because we keep hiring more scientists that keep telling us the same thing over and over again. We don't need thousands of researchers researching something on which there is basically broad consensus.
Where there isn't broad consensus is what to do about it. That's a tradeoff between economic growth and carbon emissions. Climate scientists are not qualified to speak to that, and their beliefs, opinions, or research results are irrelevant to that question.
Figuring out what to do about it requires climate research. We need to understand the mechanisms in much greater detail, to be able to predict the effects of various actions, and to figure out just how bad the problems are going to be so we know what kind of actions make sense.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
I can't wait till we break out into civil war so I can kill shitstains like you
And there you have it. A man who would willingly and enthusiastically murder a fellow American in cold blood because they choose to believe something different than he does.
Think about that for a full minute and let it sink in. Then ask yourself, how bad can it get?
It's obvious. Trump wants the names of the people who work on climate change so he can tell them to stop changing the climate.
This is a typical intimidation tactic. Create a list, fire a few high profile folks on it, then get the rest to tow the line. This isn't about managing resources, this is about setting a new agenda.
I'm all for trimming the fat, but I think you do that by removing the incompetent at their jobs, not removing the capable people that just think differently than you. Sadly, I think the next administration will think like executives at a company and not as statesmen (statespeople) of a nation.
Awww, you make it sound like it's an unwanted side effect. Maybe living in "boat over" country will give you a new perspective.
That's why everyone will need (Trump) towers ! It's all part of a plan.
Sure, just like the scene from Mars Attacks where the Martians kept repeating "don't run, we are your friends" as they walked through the streets evaporating humans with their phasers.
Silence!! Didn't you know the internet is now only used for bashing things that Trump might potentially do, while acting as if they both already happened and had horrible repercussions!?
Anyone who has worked for a company that undergoes management change or merger/buyout is familiar with this -- especially in R&D. It's commonplace to have to justify your job, and also commonplace to get a new boss that doesn't understand or agree with what you are doing. Your new boss may be an idiot and your work may be the holy grail. It doesn't matter. Best you can do is make a good argument as to why your work should continue or how it can be adapted. Meanwhile, start looking at career alternatives. Sorry snowflake, there is no tenure in the working world. And refusing to communicate with the new boss leaves the new boss no choice but to get rid of you.
The 6 meters of sea-level rise
Even the IPCC says it's between 60-150cm over the next 100 years.
Do you even know how large a centimeter is (not)?
That is a max of 1.5 meters - over a 100 year span! Do you seriously think coastal areas will not be able to deal with that incredibly slow rise? Do you not seriously think warming will be greatly abated as inevitable update of technologies like solar and nuclear power slows down warming, even over the next 50 years???
Again what really bugs be about you warming cultists is how much you think your unwavering opinions are based on science when most of it is based on utterly irrational groupthink, without any ability to predict anything that will occur.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
your post nicely demonstrates how common sense isn't.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well, since you're clearly a sociopath, I don't suppose you should care.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Swaying an opinion be it individual or en masse does not need facts, and never has.
What is needed is better PR, and regardless of what you or I think about the election or climate change, it is measurably true from the results of the past that we have a definitive divide between what media thinks reaches people and what /actually/ reaches people. Research and data is not going to make this one happen.
It is always important to know what game you are playing when trying to beat opposition. If you are playing a different game, you might win your game, but it might not be the game that matters.
This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
This is what losing an election like this means...it means your time of screwing over the other side is up and now you best lube up yourself. Then it will sawp back and be same as always.
And this is what is wrong with America. So many people want to cheer and say "screw the other side" or "lube up" as you put it. Well, you realize the "other side" is a good 30-40% minimum of the population of America. You screw that many people over and what you are really doing is screwing the country over, yourself included. I mean hell, Americans didn't hate each other as much during the Civil War as they do now. We are on a downward path of animosity, fiery rhetoric, obstructionism, and retribution that would leave America in such a state that even Nero would put down his lyre. Make America great again? With the current state of our politics I'm not so sure we deserve to be great anymore.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Yes, yes we have. We've learned SJWs need to be hunted down and eradicated in every sector of business, education and government. They not only poison any environment they breathe (breed?) in, but then, should they take control, turn on each other to out-left the next gauge-wearing, free-trade coffee drinking person next to them. It leads to an atmosphere where people actually start to believe the BS they produce (Clinton campaign, anyone?) and try to make actual, rational decisions based on unicorn farts and rainbows. Now sit down out of the way with your coloring books and Legos- the adults are talking.
And maybe we wanted the list of top leaders in saddams party Iraq so we could help them with a smooth transition through counseling and education.
I highly doubt the trump transition team is asking for data of people working on things that he has described ad a conspiracy by china is an attempt to shore up weaknesses in the programs.
Unless you are saying "Maybe they want this so they can hire the proper people for certain cabinet positions" in the way of hiring people who will recognize the problem and eradicate anything or person who believes the china conspiracy.
so there.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
And yet 30% of America is 100% verifiable idiots. Trump is their leader of denying reality. Climate change isn't even the most obvious of his ridiculously retarded misconceptions, and they seem to be multiplying.
So yes, FUCK THOSE RETARDS, regardless of whether or not they are "my fellow" Americans.
Unfortunately, insubordination does not go too far.
No organization can survive insubordination. I think he will sack entire agency, and you cannot find a better reason. Fraction of the agency will survive and some key functions, and some survivors will be merged with other agencies (commerce, defense).
Instead of just immediately refusing the request, has anyone bothered to ask the Trump Transition Team why they want the list? Everyone seems to think they want this so they can blacklist them.
Right.
He actually wants to give them medals and a big bonus.
Democrats did get more votes than Reps. However this argument is moot and irrelevant.
You can lose chess even though you still have more pieces. This is checkers game, where you have to have more pieces. In chess, number of pieces does not matter if you have been checkmated.
Can this argument about winning more popular votes be no longer used? 2020 will come and we will show Trump real democratic candidates, our gold team, such as Sanders/Biden 2020!
There's no real trade off. Don't start curbing CO2 emissions substantially now, and the cost to national and global economies in fifty years will be beyond astronomical.
Unless of course, you're wrong. Then there will be a huge trade off. And with the accounting games and cost exaggerations I've seen, I don't buy that the cost of global warming will be astronomical.
Leftists don't believe in guns, and definitely not for using them in a civil uprising.
The Bolsheviks would like a word with you...
#DeleteChrome
"Cultists". How ironical.
Take your fucking Glow Bull Warming alarmist cult religion and stuff it. There, I said it without calling you a moron.
We may be outnumbered and shouted down on this forum, but the freaks are not going to get things their way in DC for a while. It's kind of fun to watch the tantrums.
Really? What "actions" are there besides reducing CO2 and methane emissions?
Democrats did get more votes than Reps. However this argument is moot and irrelevant.
In response to a "going against the will of the voters" argument, it is in no way irrelevant. It is not being brought up to try claim HRC is the real president - it's being brought up to refute the claim that DT has some sort of mandate from the masses.
It worked just fine for the air traffic controllers the last time we had a REAL president.
The air traffic controllers violated the law by going on strike. Anyone can get fired for illegal activity.
http://reagan.civiced.org/lessons/domestic-policy-air-traffic-controllers-strike
Ironically, the air traffic controller union was the only union to endorse Reagan for president. Something that many Trump supporters will soon find out for themselves.
Yes, CO2 absorbs solar radiation. This has been known for over a century, and early physicists even speculated that increasing the amount in the atmosphere would lead to heating.
There is absolutely nothing controversial about AGW, it's only because a lot of people would lose money if oil was priced for the damage it does that there is a political controversy.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"Needed" for what? More beautiful scientific insights? Sure. But, concretely, what do you hope to gain from spending more money on climate change research? Where specifically are there uncertainties that are relevant to political decision making?
We know what the costs are; several decades of research have worked that out. The question we're discussing here isn't whether we should curb CO2 emissions, but whether we need to keep thousands of climate change researchers on the government payroll, and for what purpose.
We haven't had a budget in 8 years and all of a sudden McConnell is talking about how he's worried about a deficit under Trump. Imagine his surprise when Trump submits a proposal well under current expenditures.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Only to fools like you.
Everyone seems to think they want this so they can blacklist them. Maybe they want this so they can hire the proper people for certain cabinet positions.
Then why did he make a climate change denier the head of the EPA to start with?
The left in the US has blue haired feminists and drug-addled pajama boys packed into the cities with no food, supplies, survival or weapons training. The right has the rural areas and farmland, the police, the FBI, the rednecks, the veterans, most of the military. How exactly is the left going to stage an armed insurrection?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
it you take over a business, one of the first thing you do is ask for an org chart. That way you know who is in charge and where the waste is. Let's say the company is spending a million dollar on travel expenses to a UN convention, the first question would be: so who is going that it costs us so much money, what did you learn and how did you turn that into progress, that is regardless of your personal opinion on whether the topic was legitimate.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
it should be noted that the exercise in futility that Stein initiated revealed FRAUD, clear and obvious within the Michigan election, favoring Hillary, even though Trump won.
Sorry, but that number of popular votes thing...you don't want to be flogging that. We all know for a fact that those votes came basically from California...where they let and encouraged Illegal Aliens to vote.
She didn't win that vote and you, if you're honest with yourself (which you clearly aren't...or with anyone else, for that matter...) would not lead with that fucked up lie. But here we are.
> You also have yet to prove why 2C (current prediction) of potential warming does anything except bring unprecedented prosperity to humanity.
The 6 meters of sea-level rise that will eventually happen as a consequence of 2C in temperature increase will put major parts of coastal areas underwater.
In 300 years.
They were just relocating them to a happy place.
SAys the delicate snowflake child man who doesn't have the vaguest idea how science functions, and imagines that a pack of engineers and political operatives somehow represents some significant blow against a scientific theory.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The transition team did not respond to a request for comment.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
If you genuinely want to know what to *do* about climate change, don't you think it would be helpful to better know exactly how it's going to happen, along with where, when, and of course how much? So we can predict in detail what will happen, and prepare appropriately for it. You do want to use your mitigation and adaption budget as effectively as possible, right?
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
...Americans didn't hate each other as much during the Civil War as they do now.
I think this is demonstrably not true.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Well yeah, philosophically there isn't any really good comeback to nihilism.
How about this (said to a self-proclaimed nihilist): "You are a liar and a hypocrite. If you really thought nothing mattered, you not bother to continue living." Every living self-proclaimed nihilist is a lying hypocrite. The "nihilism" is only selectively deployed against things they don't like (yet again proof of their lying hypocrisy).
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
kudos, nice snark
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
I'd hardly call meeting the standards the Constitutional (you know, law of the land) mandated method of choosing a president, a mere "technicality".
If you think that, I'd suggest you start boning up on your old civics classes.
You are a member of your state FIRST, and then a member of the United States second. There is a valid reason it is set up the way it is.....to balance the power of the States and the States' voices for who the president is.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Evolutionary dead ends do not care.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Even when he had the House and Senate Obama couldn't submit them on time (as required by law). Of 8 attempts, he only submitted on time twice, 2010 and 2015. And Mr. Pie in the Sky has such wacky budgets they don't even pass. I know they are policy plans, but his has been so out-of-touch that even a Democratically controlled Congress wouldn't pass them.
Ha, yeah, I was thinking something similar, but I figure he was trying to be sarcastic. One thing that I think is ironic is that when CWII occurs, it will be the ones on the alt-right that have AK-47's instead of the lefties.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Congress can pass laws that mandate the existence of agencies.
Well, you know, we don't really need the Florida Keys or that lower portion of Florida... or New Orleans... or a good chunk of the current gulf coast... or most of the islands along the east coast... DC will survive, but Baltimore will get a much needed cleaning.. thankfully New Jersey is probably screwed... also Delaware... Trump can recoup some of his Atlantic City investments by offering scuba tours... Manhattan will probably be ok-ish... but good bye JFK airport... oh and Newark/JerseyCity should probably invest in boats... on the other side, Los Angeles will get a lot more scenic shore line... SF will be fine, but Silicon Valley will be aptly named... of course, everyone can party on the new Lake Sacramento... and whatever who cares about Portland and Seattle anyway.
I'm sure it won't be that costly...
All while ignoring failed models of the past, claims that can't be backed up, hottest years "ever" that has a tolerance bigger than the number claimed (ie fuck math?) the "rising oceans" that are supposedly swapping low laying countries yet areas of the US coast that are low have not changed. Yes, keep "pounding" it through our heads, because that's worked SOOO well so far. Science left the "all in" crowd of climate change years ago. If it didn't they wouldn't talk in matter of facts, not want to debate a thing, and then claim "the science is settled!" like the science so beyond questioning. Hell after things like CERN bringing in to question Einstein’s theory of relativity, how can any one that is rational say that "the science is settled"?
Although it is congress that determines funding this is a Republican congress. They have wanted to do away with clean energy initiatives for years. Trump might not exactly get his way but he will certainly enjoy nearly a free hand in pressuring any governmental department they don't like.
I forget what the issue was but I recall the Republican congress threatened to de-fund the GAO of all things and ended up successfully suppressing the analysis the GAO did that they didn't want the public to see. Expect many repetitions of that over the next two years while Trump and the House Republican's one up each other trying to pretend they are sticking up for the common man by cutting government waste.
As a Hillary voter I will say one thing for Trump. No other politician Hillary included could ever even suggest cutting the DoD budget. The closest we ever came to it was when Rumsfeld canceled the super-cannon thing. Since then any attempt to rein in military spending would be attacked as a "he/she doesn't support the troops" issue and Trump alone seems immune to that.
I know it's unpopular, but the Electoral College is an important FEATURE of our representative democracy, and should not be thrown aside just because it looks like it may be used to make Trump the next POTUS. The Electoral College is a safety valve against popularity, foreign interests, and other manipulations of the electorate.
It may come to pass that, in this election, Trump wins the EC vote. If that's the case, and some people are upset about it, it may allow for state-by-state actions that could help tune that safety valve by revising how Electors are chosen, and what actions they can and cannot legally take.
Please don't apply your unhappiness with a particular candidate to a vital feature of the US system of government. The risks of getting such a safety system removed from the process are far outweighed (IMHO) by the potential 4 or 8 years of Trump.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
Ok, they *can*..but I do wonder of all these departments and agencies...how many were actually set up and mandated by law vs just being set forth as a decree from the Executive Branch, in order to help enforce the laws from congress....?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
When you submit budgets that your own party tries to prevent coming to the floor for a vote and even when they do, receive votes in the single digits between both houses I don't think you could really say a real budget proposal was submitted.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
"Computer models that can be programmed to obtain a desired result are not facts."
Show me where the preponderance of evidence can be debunked with bad computer models.
That's right you can't.
Or is there a mass conspiracy among 99% of climate scientists?
Either way your argument comes across to me as unintelligent.
"Science is the power of man"
It obviously hasn't, but it creates reams and reams of very hard to refute evidence. Actually, thanks for being hard headed, you're helping the very thing feelings have you against.
"Science is the power of man"
No, we won't. Stop being delusional. First off, Biden is not part of the Sanders camp, he's a lot closer to the Hillary camp, though admittedly he isn't remotely as scandal-plagued or charismatically-challenged as her. Secondly, Biden and Sanders are both quite old now; it's really doubtful either one of them is up for a 2020 run. They'd both probably be the oldest contenders in history for those offices.
Regardless of all that, I simply cannot believe that the DNC would back Sanders again (or a Sanders clone). They're simply too corrupt; they proved it in this election. They even re-elected Pelosi to her position.
I think what's going to happen is one of 2 things: 1) Hillary will be backed, yet again, and will lose, *again*, to Trump, even amidst a terrible recession caused by Trump's policies. I think the DNC just isn't ready to throw in the towel on pushing their queen to the Presidency. 2) Some other (younger, slightly less scandal-plagued, but obviously sold-out corporatist) Hillary clone will be nominated again, again with dirty tricks by the DNC just like this year, and they'll lose, again.
And cut it out with your comments about "real democratic candidates". See the No True Scotsman fallacy. Candidates like Hillary and DWS are *real* Democrats. They epitomize the Democratic party, and this was proven this year by the DNC's backing of them.
Face it: the Democratic party has a *long* history of running establishment-backed losers. Every once in a while there's a big upset or exception, but most of the time they pick the most uncharismatic people they can find, and frequently the most corrupt. They ran Mondale and Dukakis, both horribly uncharismatic. Then they picked Bill Clinton; corrupt (though it wasn't so obvious back then) but he made up for it in charisma and the Republicans' vote was split by Perot so he won with a minority. He got lucky and presided over an economic boom fueled by the internet so he got re-elected (Dole had no charisma too). Then they ran Gore, who had the charisma of a wooden pole, and he lost (partially thanks to the vote being split by the much more progressive Nader) to Bush, who had some charisma though he was dumber than a chimp and looked like one too. Then they tried running Kerry against Bush, and Kerry too had no charisma and was totally unlikeable. Then they tried coronating their corrupt and utterly unlikeable queen Hillary, but Obama (who had lots of charisma) threw a wrench into their machinations there and beat her in the primaries in a big surprise. So now that Obama can't run for a 3rd term (which is too bad, I'll take him over Hillary any day), they did it again, and succeeded this time with lots of dirty tricks against another charismatic upstart named Sanders, and just as Michael Moore predicted, she lost to Trump, the second most unpopular candidate in history.
If the Democratic Party can't learn their lesson after at least 32 years, I have no idea why you think they'll suddenly change their ways now.
Would you be able to say no to a new CEO? I don't think so.
how is this insightful? flamebait or troll or off topic maybe
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
What color is the sky in the universe you live in?
The sky on my WORLD is blue during the day and mostly black at night.. The Universe is mostly black and it doesn't really have a sky persay... In fact some think of it as what's beyond the sky for the most part...
So what color is the SKY in your World?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
All of them were set up by law. Executive branch discretion doesn't go nearly as far as you are imagining. Among other things, Congress funds all of the departments.
This is easy-to-find stuff - for DOE, it's in the second graf of the history section on wikipedia:
On August 4, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed into law The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (Pub.L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565, enacted August 4, 1977), which created the Department of Energy.
Really? What "actions" are there besides reducing CO2 and methane emissions?
Reducing insolation is probably the biggest one. There are lots of options for that, ranging from space-based shades to attempting to adjust the albedo of large regions, plus I'm sure many others I haven't considered. Simply reducing insolation won't fix ocean acidity levels, so some other action may be required there. There are also schemes for large-scale carbon sequestration, drawing the CO2 from the atmosphere.
In a phrase: planetary climate engineering. Note that right now we need to cool the planet, but it's also possible that in the future we'll need to warm it up, so we should learn how to do that, too.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
You do realize that the climate has been warmer and colder than it is now in the past, both near and far. Right?
What caused "global warming" back when things where warmer than they are now? Surely it wasn't man burring fossil fuels, or was it?
Personally, I think the evidence is pretty clear, the earth is getting warmer AND CO2 levels are going up.... What's not so clear is the linking of one to the other. Just because they coincide doesn't mean they are causally related. We've had warming trends in the past which where not associated with CO2 levels and vice versa.
Seems like a lot of hubris is involved in thinking we KNOW what's really going on and why, much less thinking humans can do such things to the global system that has obviously out lasted our short stent here within it. And there is a good chance that Warmer + more CO2 might just benefit all the green things that are growth constrained by the lack of CO2.... But hey, lets not quibble about trifles...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Citation needed
Man you Democrats haven't been this pissed off since us Republicans freed your slaves. I'm loving it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Fourteenth Amendment made you a citizen of the United States first.
And now we have the final cover for the cowardly little science deniers...
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The "facts" on climate change are that we have a bunch of massaged historical temperature measurements that indicate a warming trend.
The bullshit on climate change is that "scientists" can use those observations and create a model which predicts the future. Science is based on observation and experiment. Predicting what's going to happen 20,30 or 50 years in the future is not "science", no matter how many PhDs you have working on it.
"science deniers are holding all progress back"
"Progress" as in higher taxes, a new Wall St. casino for trading "carbon credits" and more government micro-management of our personal lives? No thanks. We're better off dealing with the consequences of "climate change" than the consequences of more government. Besides, if all these doomsday predictions come true, there will be a massive die-off of homo sapiens. If homo sapiens are truly the cause of the problem, then it's a self-correcting problem.
It is easy to advocate destruction of, say, the EPA, but once you are the chief of the EPA, then is is your organization, and there is a natural desire to defend your turf.
But if you're the head of the organization and the rest of the organization don't obey your orders, it's not "your" organization, is it?
And if you think the organization should be disbanded, or gutted and rebuilt in your image, this gives you just a DANDY excuse. It's "insubordination" (the bureaucratic equivalent of "mutiny") and cause for dismissal.
How convenient.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What a strange response. Nihilists don't need a reason to live, and continuing living is less hassle than ending it. Killing oneself is something a non-nihilist would consider doing if they lost their faith.
Man, you really need that seminar!
Just have the list conclude of every current and former employee/contractor of the agency. They all worked on it, peripherally or not.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
it's being brought up to refute the claim that DT has some sort of mandate from the masses.
How does it reduce his mandate if the vote difference is a few million one way or the other? It's essentially the same in a nation of hundreds of millions of potential voters, most of which chose not to vote.
No, the "against the will of the voters' is being trotted out as it is every time a democrat wins the "popular vote" (itself a lie because that number of votes is lower than the number of people who did not vote).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"as Obama has never done"
Wat?
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
If you have some evidence that data is being fabricated, then provide it.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I am sure that Hillary Clinton will have her day one way or another. She will successfully run in 2020, she will win against Trump, and she will be a president. It is simply her turn and it will be historic justice. By 2020 all these scandals will be forgotten and people will be rushing to polls to vote against Trump. There is no more qualified and seasoned person to campaign.
Now sit down out of the way with your coloring books and Legos- the adults are talking.
Man, if Trump and his entourage of idiots are the adults, I'm truly frightened now. You do know, China has come out and said Trump is an "ignorant child." Let's see, who should I listen to? Someone who voted for the worst joke ever, or an 8000 year old civilization saying, "Guys, that dude is an idiot." I'm afraid, in 2016, there were no adults present, they all left the country.
Just because your guy won on a technicality
Let me guess. If the team that wins the Super Bowl by scoring more touchdowns and field goals isn't your favorite team, you'll complain that they only won on a "technicality" because your team ran the ball for more yards, and running around with the ball is what people really want to see, not scoring, and so the win really should go to your team. Sounds about right, huh?
doesn't mean you have the populous behind you
But you think that a Hillary win based on the votes of roughly a quarter of the population, despite losing across most of the states and especially in important ones that her party usually wins, means she has "the populous behind her?" You really think that Clinton's 65 million votes in a nation of 325 million people is a sign of "the populous" being behind her, when that number for her is only slightly larger than the winner of the electoral votes because of a couple of counties in NY and California?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Reams? You mean all the models that they have to admit are wrong once they are inspected by someone other then those that make monetary gains said models? Is that evidence a tolerance of ±.1 degrees and a claim that it was warmer by .02 degrees? Do you not know how tolerance works? Are we supposed to ignore math too? Yes, but it is "I" that is hard headed. How about we go through how the whole bullshit 97% number was come too? Odd considering it recently because 99% also without any new studies. Why not look up how often you can really, in a legitimate study that doesn't blur facts and hen peck number, come to a number where 99% of scientists agree on anything. No, better to keep the blinders on and not actually look in to anything.
Then why did he make a climate change denier the head of the EPA to start with?
Which imaginary person do you think is the designated EPA head in your imaginary world?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
The scientists that Trump is asking about have little to do with that area. And the executive branch has no mandate to engage in "planetary climate engineering" anyway; that is something we would have to have a large political debate about, and it is something that requires international agreement. So, you may or may not think that "planetary climate engineering" is a good thing, but it has little to do with Trump's attempt at house cleaning at the agencies.
Hilary Clinton will be like 73 years old for the next election, and she just lost this one to a guy that couldn't have beaten *me* in a general election, and I'm an atheist who doesn't like people and who has the TV presence of Moe Syzlak. You think she might not be a viable candidate for the nomination in four years? Wow...what an amazing prediction there, Karnak.
She isn't going to face a justice department investigation because she didn't do anything particularly wrong, and the scandal has now served its purpose. You don't want to spend the next four years as President Trump having the New York Times and Washington Post running daily articles about yet another day's worth of courtroom testimony about the ratfucking (that's a real term, ladies and gents) that took place to get you elected in the first place, even if it doesn't really matter because the voters are all reading the Breitbart expose about the lizard people using the UN to run a global conspiracy to replace Bud Light with Seize Soixante Quatre or whatever that communist bubble water is called.
Khm, "unfit"? When I called Obama "unfit", you called me racist. If I called Hillary Clinton "unfit", you would've called me sexist.
You are calling Trump unfit — what do you call yourself? He won — fair and square. Suck it up, cupcakes...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Seems like a lot of hubris is involved in thinking we KNOW what's really going on and why
And that supports a decision to defund climate research ... how?
Breakfast served all day!
But come a few weeks, he will have that full power...and I'd guess pretty much anyone, even the whole department as an entity could be done away with pretty quickly?
Who in their right mind would want to disband the DoE? They have access to nukes, YOU can be the one to tell them they are all fired.....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The consensus is that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics explain a significant amount of physical phenomena. The consensus is that biological evolution and common descent explain the diversity of life we see on this planet. The consensus is that the universe is a little over 13 billion years old. The consensus is that HIV causes AIDS. The consensus is that the human brain is the seat of consciousness. The consensus is that electrons exist and carry a negative charge. The consensus is that CO2 absorbs solar radiation in certain spectra and re-emits that energy, thus creating a situation in which higher concentrations of CO2 can lead to more energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere.
Consensus built on data and experiment isn't bad, so the idea that you can just simply declare "consensus is wrong" is beyond absurd. It's sort of taking Kuhn's paradigm shift (an idea even he later admitted he'd overstated) to an extreme, whereby science is somehow not the steady building of knowledge, but rather periods of lazy acceptance punctured by periods of extreme change and new ideas. While such events do happen, they happen extremely rarely, and I'd challenge you to name more than a handful of scientific theories that have been out and out falsified. The only major ones in the last hundred years or so I can think of that have been thrown out are some of the pre-tectonic geological theories and the Steady State model. Even Newtonian mechanics wasn't really falsified, and serves as a reasonable way of making calculations in non-relativistic applications (which apply to most normal problems).
So what we have here at the end of the day is posters like you just mindlessly repeating Koch brothers memes, with a near total ignorance of science.
And at the end of the day, CO2 has the properties it has, and those properties have been known for well over a century, as has the basic idea that if you increase CO2 concentrations even fractionally in the atmosphere, you will inevitably, as a consequence of the way the universe functions, trap energy (heat) in the lower atmosphere, which will lead to warming of both land and ocean. Couple that with the way oceanic chemistry works, it also means you alter the pH level of the oceans, effectively acidifying them. There is absolutely nothing controversial this. This is simply the way the universe works. It doesn't care that you don't like the effects. It doesn't care about your ideology or who you voted for president. The universe functions the way it does, and all your declarations to the otherwise are simply the utterings of a fool on the Internet, impotent, ignorant, and just plain goddamned stupid.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There is a valid reason it is set up the way it is.....to balance the power of the States and the States' voices for who the president is.
There's a reason it's the way it is, it's so my vote counts more than yours and I like it that way. The actual reasons are not what you claim. You are ignorant of history and rationalizing away a real problem.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Question science all you want, but ask intelligent questions. Denying pretty incontrovertible facts like CO2's properties around absorbing solar radiation is basically the same as denying the Earth is round.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As will these employees soon find out. Everyone who defies or makes fun of Mr. Trump should be in prison. Because he is taking back control!
So you are saying i nailed it. Im not saying its right...im saying this is what our system has become...and it is just as much pne side as the other. In fact it is the fact that we have allowed only to parties to have any chance to win nationally. We get the government we deserve...and we dont deserve much.
Just as all empires fade...so will ours.
And you exhibit another part of the problem: if I offer any sort of criticism I must automatically support the "other side". In reality I've been against the increasing hostility and unwillingness to compromise for years. And then with this last election we got dangerously close to the spectre of arresting political opponents. Not a very good direction for a democracy to take.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
You're not "open minded" or intelligent in the least. You deny science that conflicts with your leaders' profits, you're the side filled with religionists who by definition believe in fairy tales over evidence, you're the side favored by the KKK and other white supremacists, you're the side that wants to deny people the freedom of association by working against gay rights, and you're the side who believes that nationalism and isolationism are good ideas even though this was disproved both by imperial China and the events that led to WWI in Europe.
Pro-Trump voters are easy to understand, though it's a shame that so many on the left don't. It's simple: the economic engines that powered and enabled their rural lifestyles have been drying up for decades, because of expansion of global markets and the rise of developing nations into modern manufacturing economies, forcing all the young people in their regions to flee to cities for better economic opportunities. Along with that, their "rural values" have been dying out: religion, obvious racism, etc. So now they're mad, and instead of either getting themselves an education and joining the 21st century, or at least joining civilization and becoming urban workers earning a living in servicing those who did, they're voting for regressive economic policies and ultra-wealthy people, which will only worsen the divide between the rich and the poor, and make them even worse off than before. They ended up voting for a guy who simply told them what they wanted to hear, competing against a bunch of other Republican candidates who weren't, but who's already making moves that obviously don't reflect his campaign rhetoric (though they'll mentally twist themselves into knots to deny this), and will probably end up benefiting Russia's economy more than anything else. They were aided by other conservative voters who always blindly vote Republican because they believe in oppressing the rights of women to make their own medical choices, or those who always blindly vote Republican because of gun issues, and maybe some who simply voted against Hillary because she was such an awful and corrupt candidate, as well as people who voted 3rd party for that latter reason or just stayed home. That's why Trump won.
Yeah, that's one of those posts where it's almost impossible to tell if it's sarcasm or an honestly-held opinion. It doesn't help that the rabid Hillary supporters really believe everything in that post, though they usually don't spell it all out in 5 succinct sentences like that. I believe it's probably sarcasm though, as evidenced by the "It is simply her turn" line. But again, true Hillary supporters really believe that crap: they'll tell you stuff like "she's worked so hard for the last XX years for the American people", implying that it really is "her turn".
Seems like a lot of hubris is involved in thinking we KNOW what's really going on and why
And that supports a decision to defund climate research ... how?
Who's saying we should defund? Perhaps we don't need to spend money hand over fist on this and perhaps invest some of those research dollars on other more pressing things? Although, I'm seeing the scads of money we have thrown down this rat hole as more beating a dead horse at this point...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Yes it is true of AGW, which is constantly tested and refined, and built upon the well known physical properties of greenhouse gases. You just don't like the answer, so you raise a constant stream of ignorant and ludicrous objections.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
And where the hell do you get the idea that previous climate periods aren't considered? It strikes me that you know virtually nothing about climatology, and just simply repeat what you've heard from denier sites?
Have you even bothered to ask a researcher?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is what will happen to every major government department and agency. Trump will be nominating the cabinet members which require confirmation by Congress. The rest are appointees. Of which there will be about 4,000 of them. This is what happens at every single change in political control. When the agency / department head is replaced that person will then build their team by replacing all their direct reports most of the time. Those people head various groups within the agency / department and will be also replacing their direct reports and building their teams. This goes on and on down the chain of command. It could take a couple years for all that to shake out. We are talking management and middle management positions. The workers pretty much stay the same. The employment protections apply to the worker bees not management. Now you may very well have some disgruntled worker bees but if they raise their profile too high they will be found out and removed one way or another. If that person cannot be fired, they may be transferred, demoted, removed from a position of power, or possibly promoted and given a lot of rope to then make a big enough mistake to be fired. This is exactly what happens at every major corporation when leadership changes. A new CEO, CFO, etc. comes on board and restructures their department moving people around replacing a number of them, etc. It happens all the time. Internal corporate political battles are common. Executives have contracts with golden parachutes and extensive benefits well above the average employee. If they get fired, they likely still get paid until the contract is up and still get large severance package. At the CEO level that could be millions of dollars. In government, you get fired you go find a job in the private sector as a government consultant, etc.
So to think that anyone working in these positions could stealthily run the previous administrations goals without getting caught is pretty silly. At most they need to keep their head down and not attract attention to themselves. If they try to do anything drastic they will get noticed and the hammer will fall. There are protections for them but they are not absolute.
This same thing occurred when Obama took office in 2008 and again in 2012. The same thing happened when Bill Clinton took over and GW Bush, etc., etc. This is how it works. So if they don't cooperate now, they will have no choice when the top brass is installed. Right now, they don't work for Donald Trump but it's only a matter of time. It's also not unusual for transition teams to conduct these early communications. It is a bit unnerving they wanted a list of climate change staffers but it really doesn't matter. The culture of these places is going to go under a rapid 180 degree phase change and there is nothing to stop it. That is what winning looks like.
Ever notice that it's the Republicans that are always getting accused of voting fraud, but it's the Democrats that are always getting caught at it?
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
First...what exactly does the "Department of Energy" do for us in the US?
I honestly don't know and will look it up, but if anyone can enlighten me, I'd be interested in a quick read.
I guess not everyone is aware because it seems unexpected, but the DoE is a major funder of science in the US. They are in charge of the 10 United states national labs where a big portion of major US research projects reside. I just finished grad school in physics working at Brookhaven National Lab and a lot of science happens at these places in a wide range of fields. There are some US government employed scientists/researchers but there is also huge involvement from all manner of Universities across the the world. Go google the DoE office of science to learn more. They fund a lot of energy and nuclear focused research to be sure, but there is a lot of other fundamental science research as well. As you can see in their budget here (http://science.energy.gov/~/media/budget/pdf/sc-budget-request-to-congress/fy-2016/FY_2016_Office_of_Science-Overview.pdf), they have a 5 Billion dollar line item for "Science" in 2016.
This situation is a big deal because Trump's administration is basically approaching a central chunk of the US (and to some extent international) scientific community saying he want's a list of everyone who supports climate research. This is bad news if you support climate research and bad news if you support a free and independent scientific community.
Well, it's a peculiar request to make for anything but a witch hunt.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Scott Pruitt
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So his opposition to some of the purely political "solutions" to climate change make him a climate change denier? His urge to see countries like China held to the same standard as, say, France or the US - that makes him a "denier?"
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Personally, I think the electoral college is a terrible thing that does not, and cannot, do what you argue. I don't think this because of Trump. It's an opinion I've had for many, many years.
controversy - noun -- disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated.
Please stay on Mars.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Please post your taunts grammatically.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I have the list!!:
Naughtius Maximus
Sillius Soddus
Biggus Dickus
Incontinentia Buttocks
.
.
Anybody can work under ideal circumstances. -- Jeff K. (January 4, 2001)
The phrase you are looking for is "per se", meaning "of itself".
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Yes. Just like there's a conspiracy among Christians, who would like everyone to believe in their god.
AGW deniers have the same moral standing as positive atheists (god deniers).
Consensus is not science.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
So his opposition to some of the purely political "solutions" to climate change make him a climate change denier? His urge to see countries like China held to the same standard as, say, France or the US - that makes him a "denier?"
No, the article he wrote for National Review in which he trotted out the old denialist tropes about scientific uncertainty shows he's a denialist:
That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind.
It must be wonderful to be able to set any arbitrary standard rather than "preponderance of evidence" for your preferred policy position -- in this case unanimity of all scientists in the world (apparently without regard to their particularly disciplinary qualifications going by past appeals of denialists to "scientific disagreement").
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The word is "adjusted".
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Sorry, no. Go read the 22nd Amendment. Presidents can't run for more than 2 terms, consecutive or not.
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once."
He doesn't have to wait, he's requesting this during the transition process so that he can use his time in office more effectively. That's why they have a transition process.
As for firing people, that's not relevant. All he requested was information. You may think it's so that he can fire people, but that's pure conjecture. The requesting of the information is not illegal and since he's to be the country's lead executive, the agency should comply with the request.
As a life-long Democrat I agree with Grishnakh 90%. Democrats and Liberals have a big problem: thinking that people to the right of them who's politics they don't like can be ignored or dismissed. Actually, it's a fairly common fallacy among any political true believers: my group has superior knowledge and values, and other sides are therefore ignorant and have lower moral standing. In spite of that, (paradox alert!) the masses will surely flock to us at the next election.
You can see this with grass roots groups too: The Tea Party, Occupy, Black Lives Matter all start out of the box declaring vast swaths of the populace to be their enemy, but in the next breath espouse that being assholes will surely gain them the respect of the general public. (Try setting aside whether you agree or disagree with any of those groups goals, just look at their tactics).
And at the next election one side wins. One side has to to win the way we hold elections. We don't have a choice to vote for no one, or, this may be better, none of the above--forcing a new election with different candidates. This confirming to winning side itself it's delusional belief. No. It's a short term win. The winning side has gone back and forth often enough on a decades long scale that neither the Democrats or the Republicans are shocked deep enough to reconsider that both sides are getting the loyalty of dwindling numbers. Trump's win is a bit of an outlyer, but mainstream Rep. party leaders are quite aware that many of Trumps votes were just as much an f-you aimed at them as it was at the Democrats.
Reality check. Some egoistic fuckwit corporate executive decided on some stupid stunt (an idiot silver spoon type, never having to take responsibility for their actions), decided to get a Trump pick to get that information and that fool complied without thinking. Now it looks really stupidly bad. Easy solution find the idiot who did it and get rid of them, with a public explanation. Now if it was Trump himself, well, this will have really, really bad outcomes for the rest of his administration. Trump really should consider the consequences to forcing a work to rule situation that would last his entire period in office. Work to rule can have really have really disruptive outcomes and are totally legal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/....
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
There certainly are records of who worked on what project, who traveled to what conferences, and who belongs to what professional society. You don't work at DoE without the government knowing that information, it's part of the job.
Ignoring this request is easy: "We'll be happy to perform this important data collection, we think the budget required for this effort is approximately $2.4 million. As soon as Congress appropriates that, we'll get right on it." Delay, re-direct, give the task to the biggest fuck-up in the department... this could never get done.
It's kind of mind boggling to me (as someone who worked as a government scientist) that the management would fight instead. You get constant calls for information reports and surveys as a federal employee. A good number of them are for nothing other than identifying political enemies of the current administration, the GAO, the EPA, some important Congressman, your Secretary... lots of people try this technique. Ignoring them carries far less risk than responding.
Keep your head down, and work on what you're paid for, and you'll stay out of trouble. As a civil servant, any attention is bad attention. I've seen someone get hit with a BS lab safety investigation based on an award talk he gave.
Fighting, on the other hand, is a sure fire way to lose your position and your project. There is nothing that management likes better than finding reasons to de-fund or transfer "troublemakers." Also, all government scientists are "troublemakers."
then 62/365 sure as hell isn't
We don't have a popular election, except in each of the separate states as they send their electors to actually seat the president. Since you're foggy on that, I can see why you're whining like a little girl.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
If it's every order, then yes, but if it's orders that lawyers have massive problems with then that's a pretty standard situation with newbie managers.
It was interesting watching a middle manager wander into a steelworks and try to throw his weight around when the line operator knew that not just the CEO but the board as well would be a bit pissed off if he followed orders and did something that would halt production for a month. Sometimes orders can't be obeyed for reasons of policy, charter, the law of the land or sheer impossibility. In the case of this EPA thing it's more "you are just being a prick, wasting everyone's time and looking for heads to kick - try again".
Irrelevant there is no left in American politics, there's centre Right, Right, Far Right, and hey is that Benito Mussolini over there to my left?
You are about to go from faction 2 (right) to faction 4 (hey there Ben!)
WTF? Have you sen the many positions filled and statements offered? You are not merely political, you are maniacal.
Exactly the opposite. I'm mostly apolitical. I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary. I think they are both crooks as well as secretly (not really that secret though) friends. I will say, though I haven't really paid much attention, it does seem like he is appointing people to run departments that they personally dislike. Before he started doing it I never would have thought about appointing people who dislike a particular department to run it. In hindsight, I think it's kind of brilliant. If you really want to end and/or clean up a department appointing an outsider opposed to the very existence of that department makes them very motivated to find places to cut where ever they can.
You say that as if it means something. It doesn't. The goal of the candidates was to win the electoral vote, not the popular vote. It has been this way in the US for well over two centuries. Both candidates based their campaign strategy on this. If the goal was to win the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign, different people would have voted, and Trump may have won that, too.
When the contest is for the electoral vote, candidates concentrate on campaigning in the swing states while giving relatively little attention to states that are already heavily in favor of one candidate or the other. If the contest was for the popular vote, candidates would campaign in the largest population centers instead.
With the current system, a Republican voter in a heavily Democratic state (or vice versa) may as well not vote, because it won't count anyway. If the winner was based on the popular vote, everyone's vote would count, and people would come out to vote regardless of which way their state was leaning.
For example, in California Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million votes. But it doesn't matter whether she won by 3 million, 1 million, or 10 million. It was a foregone conclusion that Clinton would win California and its 55 electoral votes, so neither candidate spent much time there. (Also, I suspect many California Republicans did not vote, because they knew their vote wouldn't matter anyway.)
If the election was based on the popular vote, the campaign would have been different -- the candidates would have concentrated their efforts on the most populous states (like California) and ignored the smaller states. Voter turnout would have been different and the results would have been different.
Trump let Clinton have California because there was no way he was going to win the majority there. If the contest was for the popular vote, Trump would have fought in California for every vote he could get.
This is not a bug, it is a feature. One of the reasons it was designed this way was so that smaller states would not, in effect, be shut out of the presidential election. For example, the population of California is about 65 times the population of Wyoming, but only has about 18 times the electoral votes. Without this protection, smaller states would have been reluctant to join the Union in the first place.
You might argue that the system should be changed. But when the system, as it is, is based on the electoral vote, candidates run their campaigns to win the electoral vote and the winner of the electoral vote becomes president. The results of the popular vote are irrelevant because that is not what they were campaigning for. You can't point to the popular vote and cry, "It's not fair! Hillary should have won!" If the contest had been for the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign and a different election. You can only speculate about the results, but Trump may very well have won that, too.
But it also means some states have WAY more say (per person) than others and the votes of millions are ignored
I think the DNC and Hillary know this was her chance and if she couldn't win against Trump, she's never going to win. Similarly, the voters saw what happened and wouldn't vote for her in a primary. I don't think Sanders will get nominated either, but that's another story.
Thought so. You aren't speaking of a lot of land area or population. And this is going to be over a couple of centuries meaning there will be plenty of time to move or protect such things as New Orleans or JFK Airport.
The EPA is not a research agency, it's a law enforcement agency.
With the current state of our politics I'm not so sure we deserve to be great anymore.
Newsflash: You never did.
Greatness isn't deserved, it just happens, often as an accident of history. In the case of the USA, because Europe tore itself apart in two wars that a) destroyed its industrial base b) either killed or drove away a lot of its most capable scientists and engineers, many to the USA and c) make the transition from colonial empires times to modern times more rough, so places like the British Empire simply disintegrated and still haven't recovered.
The USA is the big winner of WW2 and was coasting on that for a long time, but that time is coming to an end. Now you are having the tough transition period. Tech and media kept you up after the industrial base went away to China, but now that is failing, too. There's great tech coming out of Europe and Asia now, and Hollywood is losing its grip on the media/culture market because they are greedy fuckers and only re-re-re-hash the same old ideas. Meanwhile China and India are creating their own movie industries, and even the believed-to-be-almost-dead european cinema is picking up again. Heck, there are really good SciFi movies coming out of Russia right now.
Trump is calling back to a time with ignorance to history. The circumstances that made America great have changed.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He was a birther at one point too. He's a bit of a shock jock, but waffles quickly when its time to be serious. Relax, enjoy the show.
Actually since so many are rejecting facts, we need to keep proving the fact as many times as possible until it gets through their thick heads or they give up. If those that reject facts would get out of their feelings and look at the data for what it is, not what they want it to be, we could have stopped researching "is it happening" and we could be on , "how do we fix it." But as usual, science deniers are holding all progress back, because it just does not feel real.
This is an opportunity for the so called "facts" to be brought to light. If they are indeed facts, there is nothing to be afraid of. There might be some convenient rounding that they might be worried about, but on the whole, I'm sure no one was lying.
The org chart just shows you who reports to whom. It doesn't say anything about waste at all. To assume that more workers = waste can only come about from your personal opinion, so your argument kind of doesn't make any sense...
Replacing that many people will turn out to be problematic - even if you're just replacing the management.
Employees
12,944 federal (2014)
93,094 contract (2008)
https://www.eff.org/issues/tra...
Congress AND the president can apparently create agencies. An example of an agency being created is the DEA in 1973.
Name calling! The cornerstone of every logically-based argument!
He's obviously taking cue from your mangod Trump, it worked so well for him.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Sorry, meant to reply to the AC above you
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
If your org chart is top heavy or vertical layers of managers (lots of upper and middle management) you can quickly conclude that things have to be shaken up. It also helps to see who to call in case of a problem. I've seen organizations where there were more managers than workers, in those cases you can easily snip out entire layers without affecting actual productivity.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
If every state distributed its electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine which is probably the most reasonable way to express both the interest of the people and the states in the President then Trump would have still secured the 270 electoral votes required. I have heard of no configuration of the electoral college that would resulted in Hillary securing 270+ electoral votes without going with the "winner of the popular vote gets all the electoral votes" scheme.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
What's wrong with saying we will not report on lawful private behavior under any circumstance?
It's not private behaviour if your employer is paying for you to do the work or attend the conference. If it's for budget purposes maybe a better request would have been for the Trump Team to request a summary of number of attendees, cost, etc... but it still seems like a reasonable request to want to know who is doing what in a organization that you are responsible for. Even if he disagrees with what that organization is doing, he is still the one ultimately tasked with managing it.
First they came for the climate change scientists.
And I stood the hell up with them because that sort of bullshit shouldn't be tolerated.
The man who said the election was rigged, won with the 2nd most votes.
Everything you say about hillarys numbers, only worsens how trump looks when you remember that he got 3 million FEWER votes .
So the populous was more behind her than him.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Most plants die and release their sequestered CO2 in fairly short order. "Greening" does not eliminate global warming.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Blocking the sun. Yeah, the Simpsons did it. A giant space umbrella is one idea. Making some sort of reflective gas that'll hang out in the higher regions of the atmosphere is another. So far they're both pretty shitty unfeasible ideas.
Sequestering CO2. Collecting it, ideally from the air where it's causing us problems, and then sticking it somewhere it won't simply get back into the air in short order. One great thing that's been pretty good at that is plant-life. What we've done is essentially dig up a bunch of already sequestered CO2 and burn it. If we could get a strain of algae or plankton or custom-made coal-pooping super bacteria to consume CO2 and send it down to the murky depths of the sea, that'd be great. Plus it's like a gift of an oil field to some great great great grandkid.
Reducing Emissions remains the easiest and most direct method. The good news is that there's been great strides in solar and wind power. As well as better cars. Although our big ships and factories could use some improvement. And hey, Maybe it's not just CO2 and methane. Maybe if we just cut out some other item in the sky, the other things wouldn't be so bad. If only we had someone researching these things. Remember that recent study which showed how much methane did compared to CO2? The people that Trump is trying to fire are researching the sort of thing that let's us know what to fix.
he didn't ask for an org chart.
he asked "who in your mail room has worked on or handled postcards?"
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
cults are defined by their adherence to dogma in the face of reality.
thus, it is you and your like who are the cultists, not the scientific community.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
planetary climate engineering.
The scientists that Trump is asking about have little to do with that area
...Reducing emmissions, IS planetary climate engineering. Hey, giant space shades would also be climate engineering, but don't pretend the DoE isn't working towards this.
And the executive branch has no mandate to engage in "planetary climate engineering" anyway;
There's a DoE efficiency mandate. Something striving to reduce emissions by reducing the power draw from the end product (among other benefits). The reduction in emissions is trying to help curb global warming which leads to climate change. THIS IS planetary climate engineering. It's not much, but it's the easiest thing to do. And besides, there are other benefits.
that is something we would have to have a large political debate about, and it is something that requires international agreement.
Why the hell do you think that? Are you completely incapable of doing anything on your own without a big nanny-state overlord telling you how to do it?
It would help. Sure. Ideally they'd help out with the projects themselves. Coordinated efforts and all that. But it sounds like you're suggesting we stop all efforts until we get the freaking U.N. to approve a research grant. Ha!
Facts will stand or fall on their own
...Then why are you posting anonymously?
ok.
stop the research,
ooloorie has declared we've learned all we need to learn, that there is nothing more to learn. all current questions are answered.
you're so dumb you don't even know what you don't know.
danning krunig (spelling) is in full effect.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
It's finding out who the cultists are
By asking them to fill out a survey? And firing anyone who admits to going to a science conference on a topic pertinent to their job?
It's about half-way to asking "Are you a Jew?"
Oh look! An idiot on the internet! How droll!
When has Trump displayed evidence that he /ever/ considers the consequences before doing something?
Comedic. I'll give you that.
Anyway seriously, what legitimate reason could they possibly have? The transition team doesn't believe climate change is real, they are going to offer everyone who worked on it cabinet positions? That makes no sense.
If Trump asks every muslim to put their name on a list .. given the anti muslim rhetoric .. would you believe the rational approach for a muslim is to act as if the reason behind it is that he wants to give them free candy? Sometimes you do have to assume at least bad, if not the worst, until told or proven otherwise.
Also it's only a bad rule until it causes your team to lose.
Before then it's good and you don't need to speak up against it.
....as I guess Trump would say, you're fired!
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
mangod
At least you know this and can admit it.
Low energy. Bigly. Believe me.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
I call it a witch hunt against scientists by evil men, enabled by morons like yourself.
CO2 won't stop magically absorbing solar radiation and heating the lower atmosphere just because Trump and his science-hating peons get rid of the scientists. The universe doesn't give one flying fuck about Donald Trump or some halfwit who goes around by the handle SuperKendall.
What? You mean the whole brain trust who informed us that the reduction of Iraq to chaos was not only necessary for our safety, but would also be a good thing, because our liberating soldiers would be greeted with flowers and candy, and it would sow the seeds of democracy in the Arab world, and besides the war would pay for itself, might not be correct in their analysis of complex planetwide physical phenomena?
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
We don't know what the costs are. That the temperature is going up and bad things are going to happen (and are happening) is certain. Exactly what the bad things are is still a matter of uncertain projection. How much will sea level rise by 2100? Nobody really knows. We can make reasonably good guesses, but knowing whether it's going to be half a meter or a meter, to give two possibilities) would be very useful in deciding what to do about it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I'm almost at retirement age, with resources for a really comfortable retirement. I live close to 200m above sea level. I'm not going to be all that bothered by climate change and global warming. (My son will be, which is the skin I have in the game.) I've been arguing this stuff for a long time, and haven't changed any minds. There are other things I'm working on, so I can understand GP's point.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The right will fare no better. A bunch of angry gun owners can cause a lot of crime, but not a successful insurrection.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Models are always imperfect. Some are useful. Most can be improved to be more useful.
2015 was the hottest year on record, based on our measurements. Speaking as a math major with a strong background in probability and statistics, this is a significant fact.
Sea levels have risen, which is one thing that made Hurricane Sandy so destructive. Sandy produced a really big storm surge, and the extra 30cm or so of sea level increased its inland reach.
The fact that you are willfully stupid doesn't prove anything about the science.
"Settled science" is science that nobody has good cause to question at the moment. It is necessary to rely on a lot of settled science to make progress. Not every paper on relativity needs its own Michelson-Morley experiment. Obviously, settled science can get unsettled, but it's rare. I'm not aware of the facts involved in settled science being found wrong, only interpretations. When Wegener was talking about continental drift, everyone involved was working from the same set of facts. It turned out that Wegener's interpretation was correct, which was a surprise to many. Applying this to global warming, it would be unprecedented for new scientific theories to conclude that the world hasn't warmed up a lot recently.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
There will be a witch hunt. The lucky ones will be just fired. Most of the rest will be blacklisted. A few will be jailed.
Or, he'll just release their names so the Trumpettes can hunt them down and kill them.
Here is the range of predictions, including error bars, from the IPCC.
In what way does a foot more or less make much of a difference? A third of the Netherlands lies below sea level; those kinds of modest changes just aren't a big deal for a wealthy nation like ours.
And why would, say, $5 billion / year not be enough to figure that out, instead of the $9 billion we are spending? And maybe we are spending even more.
Budgets and spending need to be justified, and because we don't have unlimited amounts of money, we need to make tradeoffs. It's the job of the Trump administration to figure out where the money is spent right now, whether it is spent wisely, and what tradeoffs to make. If you can make a dollars and cents argument for current spending levels, make it. Waving your hands and saying "it would be very useful" isn't a rational argument about the federal budget.
Personally, I think the rational thing to do is to shift most of that climate change money to research in nuclear and fusion energy, material science, new transportation technologies, and cancer research. Those things are much more "Important to know" than expensive guesses about whether sea levels will have risen by 2 ft or 3ft half a century after I'm dead.
We've got the house, the senate, the presidency, soon the Supreme Court, almost 3/4 of the state legislatures, and (I think) 38 or so of the governor's mansions. Just need one more state legislature and Republicans can pass constitutional amendments without opposition. What need have we of an insurrection? All I'm saying is leftist opposition is futile.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Are you illiterate? Where did I say that? I am simply saying that Trump is entirely justified in determining who these people are, how much money we are spending on them, and what they are doing with that money. That's his job as the president (the job, you may have noticed, that he got elected todo). We can have a debate about the spending levels for climate research afterwards, including what people actually want.
As far as I'm concerned, I am happy to remain ignorant about the state of the global climate in 2100 because I'll be dead. I'd much rather see that money spent on medical research because that actually benefits me. It's just the kind of selfish prick that I am.
That's "Dunning Kruger", and you should reflect on that yourself. Your model of government funding appears to be that federal research funding should be awarded without a lot of checks, supervision, public disclosure, or public debate. I happen to disagree.
Yes, but the science on that is settled: people pretty much universally agree that reducing emissions is a good thing in principle.
Why do I think that installing giant space shades or changing the land albedo on a massive scale requires international agreements? Well, gee, why don't you reflect on that a little.
No, I'm suggesting that the executive branch be responsible to Congress and voters. Personally, I want lots of funding for cancer research, and little funding for climate research, because the former does me a lot of good, while the latter is irrelevant to me. Apparently, a lot of other voters think the same way.
I forget if the film had a nice ending. The real ending was that every single man in the slave rebellion was crucified (some crucified then set on fire while still alive, to provide light for the crucifixion night shift). The women had it easier - they were just sold as sex slaves. At a tidy profit.
Just ask yourself - what would Donald Smallhands do?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
If you know for a fact that all those extra votes that Clinton got are from illegal aliens, care to provide some evidence backing said "fact"?
Well, and none of those programs require large numbers of climate scientists.
Trump is going to do what he promised and that is consolidate and cut the fat. I support this direction.
Ok, ok, so you're about to say that you meant a victory. Well, guess what? Implementation of the Wyoming Rule AND proportional award by population in a state gets Hillary a win.
Adding extra electoral votes based on the Wyoming method ends up with 110 extra electoral votes of which Trump gains more than half. Distributing the electors within the state proportionally (Representative + Senator electors) based on the Wyoming rule results in the following.
Hillary (310), Trump (301), Johnson (18), Stein (2), McMullen (10). There is a deficit of 7 here, which is likely caused by rounding but with 648 electors you would need 325. If you distribute the electors granted by representatives proportionally and the state winner gets the extra two then you end up with the following results Clinton (310), Trump (313), Johnson (12), Stein (1), McMullen (10) with a deficit of 2. In neither case would either candidate secure the 325 necessary electoral votes to avoid going to Congress. Puerto Rico, since you brought it up, would inject another 7 or 9 electoral votes and bring the threshold up to 328 for 7 and 329 for 9. If Hillary had acquired the remaining balance on the rep+senators proportional and all of Puerto Rico's electoral votes then she would have sat at 324 of 328 or 326 of 329. And yes, she secures 270 electoral votes here but any sane person would be able to view in context and realize that 270 meant electoral college victory and would turn to 325 under the Wyoming rule.
There are plenty of distribution methods where Hillary fails to secure the electoral majority. You won't find a method that gives Hillary an electoral victory without somehow tying that to winning the popular vote nationwide. Anything proportional is going to give third party candidates enough electoral votes deny an electoral victory precisely because she failed to secure a majority of the popular vote and failed to secure a majority of states.
As to the other options you're talking about moving from a plurality to majority voting system, which is fine but as we don't actually vote that way you'd have to analyze and estimate the preferences of voters to determine who would have won. Such a system would also necessarily eliminate the electoral college, unless you're employing it to determine how you appropriate electors, in which case it would be outside the scope of my comment on how Hillary has little chance of an electoral college victory.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Yes, but the science on that is settled: people pretty much universally agree that reducing emissions is a good thing in principle.
Tell your president-elect that.
HAHA, and you only want a nanny-state holding your hand when you want to shut something down. That's great. But yeah, sure. For big space-shade, it'd be good to have other's buy in. But it's not like we really need it. What are they going to do? Complain about us fixing the world? Nuke it?
But it sounds like you're suggesting we stop all efforts until we get the freaking U.N. to approve a research grant. Ha!
No, I'm suggesting that the executive branch be responsible to Congress and voters. Personally, I want lots of funding for cancer research, and little funding for climate research, because the former does me a lot of good, while the latter is irrelevant to me. Apparently, a lot of other voters think the same way.
But not the majority. I remember the last president that lost the popular vote. Fun times. Trillions wasted and hundreds of thousands of dead. Imagine Al Gore had actually won and decided that instead of invading Iraq for no reason, we were going to spend a trillion dollars terraforming Earth and saving our collective asses.
ANYWAY, no you aren't suggesting how the executive branch be responsible to congress and voters. You were literally in the very last two sentences calling for international agreements. Furthermore, this witch-hunt is Trump's initiative, and he doesn't play along to the tune the GOP is playing. The GOP has congress. If the executive branch was responsible to congress, the voters, or just generally responsible at all, then he wouldn't try and fire everyone who had ever gone to a climate change conference.
Personally, I want lots of funding for cancer research,
Yeah. That sounds nice. Unfortunately, your candidate argued that vaccines cause autism, so his track record on medical science is about as abysmal. Maybe you'll change your tune when he launches a strike force against the World Health Organization for saying mean things about.... whoever that was that pushed the anti-vax movement.
Sorry, but that number of popular votes thing...you don't want to be flogging that. We all know for a fact that those votes came basically from California...where they let and encouraged Illegal Aliens to vote.
You can provide proof or STFU. A fake news story that you parrot is not proof.
I know it's unpopular, but the Electoral College is an important FEATURE of our representative democracy, and should not be thrown aside just because it looks like it may be used to make Trump the next POTUS. The Electoral College is a safety valve against popularity, foreign interests, and other manipulations of the electorate.
That's great if the Electoral College did that, but that's not what they do. We get the downside of non-proportional electoral college votes, but none of the upside.
We have a pretty clear indication of foreign interests manipulating the electorate, but the Electoral College is going to vote for Trump anyway. They wouldn't dare do differently, and if they did, they probably suspect they would spark a revolution. And anyway, for generations now the idea that an electoral voter would not follow the decision of state voters ("faithless voters") has been drummed out of the electorate.
There's no safety system here. We get all the downsides of the EC, none of the accountability that makes it worth it.
"Reducing emissions" doesn't mean government mandates or intervention to reduce emissions.
I didn't say a majority. In our system of government, the popular vote is irrelevant, and for good reason. And as even the WP pointed out, "losing the popular vote in an electoral-college election isn't the same as losing the popular vote in a popular-vote election".
Not at all. I was saying that before spending any money on those areas, we should get political agreement, both domestically and internationally. The burden is on people who want work in those areas to get those agreements first. Personally, I want neither the spending nor the agreements.
Trump needs to make a budget proposal to Congress. As such, he needs to know where money is currently spent, and a judgment on where money should be spent. For that, he needs to collect information. Since the Republican Congress is wary about spending more money on climate science, it makes sense for Trump to pay particular attention to those aspects of spending. He may then choose to submit a budget that greatly reduces spending for climate research, and Congress may choose to approve it. That's the way our government works, and that's why he is requesting that information.
Trump isn't "my candidate", I simply don't suffer from your knee-jerk opposition to him. I didn't vote for him, but so far, I have no problem with his cabinet choices or his pre-inauguration actions.
It isn't personal. There are plenty of people who wield it because that was a real thing that happened. There were over 6 million of those hammer forged. They will not lay and rust.
Wanting a list of people to fire because you think they're bad at their job is in no ways analogous to the Holocaust.
Have you ever read Ecotopia before?
Note, that's just rhetorical question. The book is fucking awful, a ridiculous fantasy top-to-bottom.
"losing the popular vote in an electoral-college election isn't the same as losing the popular vote in a popular-vote election".
Correct, if everyone's vote actually mattered, you'd have a LOOOOT more people voting blue in those deep red states and Trump would have lost it by even more. I actually would prefer the sort of system they have in Australia where you pick your top 5. It also has it's problem but it'd help this horrible partisanship.
You were literally in the very last two sentences calling for international agreements.
Not at all.
It's literally the very last two sentences. This isn't up for interpretation. This isn't something you can feel the truthiness about. It's not subjective. You're just flat-out wrong. You can go re-read your post if you want, but whatever.
I was saying that before spending any money on those areas, we should get political agreement, both domestically and internationally.
...ON WHAT? We currently don't know what to do. We know shits getting hotter. We know it's changing climates. We've got SOME idea about how and why, but there's a fuckton of unknowns. And as for the methods of fixing it? And how to compare the impact per dollar spent per the various proposals? We barely have a clue.
You're saying we need to get both the democrats and the republicans AND THE U.N. or whatever the fuck international players to all agree about a plan of attack.... Without knowing how well it's going to work?
ok ok ok.... let's say you're in charge of a team of people that was working on choosing how to fix global warming, and had to make a proposal to sell to all the domestic and foreign politicians... Who would you hire to make that proposal? Just maybe, perhaps, scientists with a focus on the subject matter?
The burden is on people who want work in those areas to get those agreements first.
No, not agreements between the UN, the democrats and the GOP. Usually it's more like grant proposals to those who have vested interest. Like, say, the Department of Energy who recommends what sort of power sources the country invests in. Now who should we get to look over those research grant proposals? Maybe someone who knows what the fuck is going on? Like a scientist?
I simply don't suffer from your knee-jerk opposition to him
Buddy, I've had a long LONG time to review this guy. He's playing a confidence-man con game. Half the shit out of his mouth is laughable and obviously crazy-talk and he admits it. The other half is questionable at best. The people who voted for him can't tell which half is which.
Personally, I want neither the spending nor the agreements.
It's nice that you at least openly admit to wanting to torpedo the whole thing. Which makes your suggestion that we need international and domestic agreement before researching anything so blatantly an effort to kill it just... laughable. Listen kiddo, If you try and send something into development hell, you can't openly suggest that's your intention. You don't want people questioning your intentions. If you openly admit your intentions are to simply kill/delay an initiative, all your advice about how to support the initiative is obviously bullshit.
Why the hell do you think that? Are you completely incapable of doing anything on your own without a big nanny-state overlord telling you how to do it?
George W. Bush refused to enter the US into the Kyoto Accords because it placed the burden for "cleaning the earth" upon wealthy countries. Specifically, first-world countries like the US were required to greatly reduce emissions while few or no limits were put on most of the countries in the world -- and China and India in particular.
If we're serious about reducing climate change, it has to be a global effort, otherwise it's like having a "no-peeing" corner in a swimming pool. As long as doing nothing has a financial benefit, most folks will do nothing and the decision makers in most societies trend older, meaning they don't have to reap the consequences of having the next generation fix the problem.
it's because constant testing has proven the models to an effectiveness percentage that 98% of the people can use them without having to retest the science and get consistent results
It's because constant testing has not proven the models WRONG. That's how the science works, most theories cannot be proven correct, but they can be proven incorrect. You would have to prove that the climate models are wrong.
...Americans didn't hate each other as much during the Civil War as they do now.
I think this is demonstrably not true.
The question of whether or not states -can- secede was settled by the Civil War. That route is not open anymore.
Doesn't mean we're not as divided now as we were then.
Not that I really believe that the nation IS as divided, but 150 years later there are more measures to bind the nation together, and the federal government is far stronger now than it was then.
Yeah, a global effort would be nice. But no, it doesn't HAVE to be a global effort. We are capable of researching it on our own and proposing solutions. And if a giant space umbrella turns out to be the best solution, how much do you think Haiti is actually going to contribute to that? Even someone like china... other than pay for it, what do you want them to do?
Furthermore, just because there isn't (equal) international cooperation not to pee in the pool, it doesn't mean we should go out of our way to take a dump in it.
And we shouldn't have a purge of all intellectuals from the DoE that would regulate and guide our energy policy towards keeping those metaphorical buttcheeks clenched.
This is what I literally said: "it is something that requires international agreement." I'm not "calling for" international agreements, I am simply stating that such agreements are necessary.
I wasn't giving advice on supporting the initiative. I was pointing out that such initiatives (1) require international agreement for deployment, and (2) that such international agreements are hard to reach. Based on your response, you obviously agree with both points. And as a tax payer, I'm not willing to spend a dime on, say, orbital solar shields if it is politically impossible to ever deploy them.
Funding for the DOE is proposed by the president and approved by Congress; that's who should look at it and that's who DOE scientists need to make a case to. If they can't do that convincingly, they should lose funding. That's how a democracy works.
And if those climate scientists can make a convincing argument to tax payers and their elected representatives, they can receive more funding. So far, they don't seem to have done a good job at making an argument. That is, while the majority of Americans think climate change is real, it doesn't rank in the top 10 issues for voters. And that's basically my attitude: it's real, but there are far more important issues to worry about and spend federal tax dollars on.
Ok, points taken. Yeah, there are always divisions, even amongst homogeneous populations. With the recent election, some relieve valves were released. Pressure building with others.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Ah, thanks. I was wondering how to respond to that.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
The NY TImes/Wash post will be running those stories in any case. But you're right, nobody pays any attention to them anymore.
If he prosecutes Hillary, it will be because he promised his voters. (The evidence is clear, already listed by her side, just the conclusion will change.) I'm hoping that the Clintons are pushed to the point they dump their blackmail material on the RNC and associates, then the big dirt dump starts.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You know what else "required" international agreement? Invading Iraq. It was politically impossible to do otherwise...
Now who should we get to look over those research grant proposals?
Funding for the DOE is proposed by the president and approved by Congress; that's who should look at it
Sounds good. Do you expect Trump to look at every grant proposal? No? Maybe he should hire some people to do that for him. Maybe make a cabinet-level department that could handle it. Maybe employ some scientists to read it over.
When a scientist submits a research grant proposal to the DoE they ARE sending it to the executive branch! And congress holds the purse-strings.
And if those climate scientists can make a convincing argument to tax payers and their elected representatives and the scientists they employ who know enough to call bullshit on shitty proposals, then they can receive more funding. Yes, that's EXACTLY what I'm suggesting. If you fire the scientists, who is in charge of refusing or approving research grants? Or are you suggesting the US government stops funding any and all research?
Pft, because the US government can only do 10 things at any given time. Sure.
Did I say that? Did I imply that? No. I expect him to set a budget for climate change research overall, not look at individual proposals. Hopefully that's a budget that's a small fraction of the current budget. He can then leave it to the scientists to figure out how to reduce their spending by 80%. While he is at it, he might also eliminate the DOE and put the whatever remains of federally funded climate research under other departments.
Not if he fires all of them that have an idea about what the grant proposals are about.
While he is at it, he might also eliminate the DOE
And we've dug through enough debate to hit crazy-town. Try to burn it all down. Good luck with that.
Right now, we're spending about $10 billion on climate change. It's the job of the agencies wanting this money to make a compelling argument to the new administration for why we should continue spending it. Individual grant proposals have nothing to do with such cost/benefit analyses.
Yes, crazy talk! How could anybody even imagine getting rid of pointless federal bureaucracies, bureaucracies that the country was doing fine without for nearly 200 years! Obviously, the only possibility evaaaah is to increase federal spending and the federal bureaucracy!