In the Trump Administration, Science Is Unwelcome. So Is Advice. (nytimes.com) 711
Anonymous readers share a report: As President Trump prepares to meet Kim Jong-un of North Korea to negotiate denuclearization, a challenge that has bedeviled the world for years, he is doing so without the help of a White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics. Mr. Trump is the first president since 1941 not to name a science adviser, a position created during World War II to guide the Oval Office on technical matters ranging from nuclear warfare to global pandemics. As a businessman and president, Mr. Trump has proudly been guided by his instincts. Nevertheless, people who have participated in past nuclear negotiations say the absence of such high-level expertise could put him at a tactical disadvantage in one of the weightiest diplomatic matters of his presidency.
"You need to have an empowered senior science adviser at the table," said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with India over a civilian nuclear deal during the George W. Bush administration. "You can be sure the other side will have that." The lack of traditional scientific advisory leadership in the White House is one example of a significant change in the Trump administration: the marginalization of science in shaping United States policy. There is no chief scientist at the State Department, where science is central to foreign policy matters such as cybersecurity and global warming. Nor is there a chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture: Mr. Trump last year nominated Sam Clovis, a former talk-show host with no scientific background, to the position, but he withdrew his name and no new nomination has been made.
"You need to have an empowered senior science adviser at the table," said R. Nicholas Burns, who led negotiations with India over a civilian nuclear deal during the George W. Bush administration. "You can be sure the other side will have that." The lack of traditional scientific advisory leadership in the White House is one example of a significant change in the Trump administration: the marginalization of science in shaping United States policy. There is no chief scientist at the State Department, where science is central to foreign policy matters such as cybersecurity and global warming. Nor is there a chief scientist at the Department of Agriculture: Mr. Trump last year nominated Sam Clovis, a former talk-show host with no scientific background, to the position, but he withdrew his name and no new nomination has been made.
I've got 15 Mod Points (Score:5, Funny)
That expire in 6 hours, time to use them!
Re: I've got 15 Mod Points (Score:5, Interesting)
When looking at it from the outside it is clear that Hillary wasn't a good alternative either.
If a female president is to be elected it has to be a new Iron Lady.
And if someone shall be able to challenge Trump in the next election it has to be a strong fast-paced person with light luggage able to shake up a movement as strong as Sanders had.
At least Trump has made politics unpredictable.
Re: I've got 15 Mod Points (Score:5, Interesting)
And if someone shall be able to challenge Trump in the next election it has to be a strong fast-paced person with light luggage able to shake up a movement as strong as Sanders had.
I believe that if Hillary had picked Sanders as her running mate, Trump would have lost by a considerable amount...
Re: I've got 15 Mod Points (Score:5, Insightful)
At least Trump has made politics unpredictable.
Yes, and everyone knows unpredictability is GREAT for the economy and foreign relations!
Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
The people giving advice on Korea have been fucking it up for 60-ish years, and REALLY fucking it up for 25 resulting in a viable nuclear program. So I wouldn't listen to them either.
Re:Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep... This shit should've been dealt with many years ago, but the puppets in office then had less important things to do.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: Advice (Score:3, Insightful)
No different than many other countries when it suits them.....Russia, China, NK, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran, The list is long and not surprising. You did know that right?
Geekpoet
Re: (Score:3)
Should we have preemptively struck N Korea and violated international laws?
What you're hopefully calling 'international law' in this case is a series of multinational conventions adhered to by the hopeful. And when applied to North Korea, they have been a total failure.
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, it's been a total failure for the same reason the war ended up as a stalemate: North Korea had a country with a very large army backing them.
Re: (Score:3)
A country which since ditching Mao has become tired of North Korea's shenanigans.
Re: Advice (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, so treaties aren't worth anything, international law is impotent, and nuclear non-proliferation is a fantasy.
What is the solution again? Unilateral action?
Or should we reconsider the NNPT entirely? Why not, since we have so far ignored the other weapons of mass destruction that are coming to the fore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
I know I am supposed to reward rather than punish with mod points, but I really do wish /. would add a mod category "-1 Without a basis in fact." Times like these it would come in handy.
Re: Advice (Score:5, Interesting)
Competence has nothing to do with it. Obama was a remarkable speaker. The man knew how to deliver a speech and his intelligence was there for all to see. But like his previous 4 predecessors he was unable to disturb the status quo in both domestic and international politics. Trump cannot give a speech without contradicting himself several times in a statement that is only 140 characters long.
His atrocious public speaking is drowning out some of the positive or potentially positive things he has done. The US economy has surpassed the estimated forecasts and unemployment numbers have decreased. And despite all the rhetoric there have been no tariffs enacted on any imports. Yet. He is giving the US allies a chance to do the right thing before he forces them to. And make no mistake. Despite all the BS the US can survive a trade war more than Europe or China can. Canada doesn't count since 80% of their trade is with the US so they have no power to effect the situation one way or another. Canada already slaps a 300% tariff on milk and lumber imports from the US and they import no US goods tariff free. Not one!
Trumps course public comments about unfair trade practices by both US adversaries and US allies has drowned out the simple fact that current policies are fair to everyone except the US. The US is stronger and wealthier and has always been expected to give more concessions than they ever receive so the smaller and poorer countries can compete. It's time to rebalance the trade policies and not just build on ones that have no bearing on current day conditions.
Trump is just the first President who doesn't mind calling countries out in public. He is challenging the status quo across the board but he will be gone in a few years and the next President should take office in a different political and economic era. The G7 countries are not upset because they think the current trade policies are fair they are upset because the trade policies are unfair and Trump is throwing a spotlight on the lopsided agreements that leave the US holding the shitty end of the stick. The economic well being of the US comes before the economic well being on any other country. The US doesn't have to bury or set out to harm another countries economy but the US shouldn't have to make any undue sacrifices either.
Trump called the NATO countries out as well about their penchant for never meeting their financial responsibilities to NATO. And the G7 countries better come up with a way to address the trade policies or they may find themselves trying to figure out how to protect themselves when the US stops bankrolling their collective security needs.
China started out with favorable trade policies with the US to help drag them from a destitute communist country to a world economic power. But China insists on negotiating trade deals as if they were an economic pigmy. China manipulates it's currency instead of letting it float. and their government heavily subsidizes it's industries to create cheaper exports. That way they can dump all the steel and solar panels on the world market for pennies on the dollar.
The Iran Nuclear deal is an example of a treaty that gives everyone involved something while giving nothing to the US. The Europeans, Russia, and China gained access to the Iranian market and were making billion dollar deals before the ink was dried. Iran got 50 billion in cash and assets that were frozen in US and other countries banks and they gained access to the international markets. The US got a pinky promise that Iran was done with developing nuclear weapons. Judging by the published Iranian nuclear program document library Iran just needed some more cash to continue their nuclear "research". Iran's windfall has financed their activities across the ME although the Iranians should really take a big step back before Israel solve the mad mullah problem for the rest of the world.
Re: Advice (Score:5, Informative)
Trump is just the first President who doesn't mind calling countries out in public. He is challenging the status quo across the board but he will be gone in a few years and the next President should take office in a different political and economic era. The G7 countries are not upset because they think the current trade policies are fair they are upset because the trade policies are unfair and Trump is throwing a spotlight on the lopsided agreements that leave the US holding the shitty end of the stick. The economic well being of the US comes before the economic well being on any other country. The US doesn't have to bury or set out to harm another countries economy but the US shouldn't have to make any undue sacrifices either.
Oh please. The problem with Trump "calling out" other countries, is that he typically doesn't actually have a leg to stand on because he doesn't seem to know anything about anything. Take the Canadian Diary complaint. No-one seems to know where Trump pulled the 300% tariff untruth (do you call it a lie? A misunderstanding? It's so hard to tell with that idiot whether he's lying or actually believes the idiotic things he's saying). The fact is, Canada does have a protected market for dairy that keeps its dairy farmers in business. It appears to be set up that way mostly for domestic reasons rather than to prevent foreign trade. The US does not have a protected market for dairy. Instead, the US tries to keep dairy farmers in business with direct subsidies to the farmers. The US policy seems to result in dairy farmers failing left and right anyway, and also vastly overproducing milk. Trump is upset because Canada won't buy all the surplus milk instead of buying milk from their own dairy farmers. Now, the interesting thing here is that, when China subsidizes steel production and then Chinese steel producers sell steel to the US, the US government complains that it's product dumping and Trump implements tariffs. For some reason, when the US is trying to do the same thing to Canada with dairy, all of a sudden Trump takes the opposite position, and market protections are horrific abuse.
Also, consider this. Canada still imports 10% of its dairy from the US. The US, in contrast, caps imports of foreign dairy at 3%. So, who's abusing who here on dairy trade? The disturbing thing is that Trump supporters seem to have this absurd belief that Trump is a "plain speaker" who "cuts through the crap". Well, the reality is that the "crap" he cuts through is every bit of nuance involved in the situation. He focuses on one detail that, in isolation, seems like it should provoke outrage, but he ignores (by being a barely literate simpleton by all appearances) all of the other extenuating details.
As for NATO countries not meeting their financial responsibilities to NATO, what are you even talking about? Are you talking about the 2% on GDP? The actual NATO treaty never demanded that. NATO was mostly about letting the US have free reign militarily over most of Europe so that they could oppose the Soviet Union and other communist countries. Up until Trump, it has never seemed to be the desire of the US for the countries of Europe to be particularly strong militarily. Trumps claims about the other NATO members are pretty much garbage.
Trumps claims about most things are uninformed garbage. Look at his complaints about US troops stationed in South Korea. The fact is, South Korea pays for the bases and pays half of the costs for the soldiers. If they left South Korea, unless Trump was planning to fire all those soldiers, the cost to the US would actually increase rather than go down.
If Trump wants to close down US military bases around the world to stop other countries from supposedly sponging off the US for defence, why doesn't he pull out of Okinawa? Quite a few Okinawans would be very happy for that to happen. Or how about Guantanamo Bay? The US is outright illegally occupying the land in that case, paying a ridiculous ~$4000 per year in rent (paid by check,
Re: Advice (Score:4)
The fact is, Canada does have a protected market for dairy that keeps its dairy farmers in business.
And somehow the US protecting it's steel industries for the same reason (to keep US steel mills in business) is somehow an insult to Canadian soldiers that have fought alongside American soldiers?
Puh-leeze!
Re: Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Advice (Score:5, Informative)
The problem with Trump "calling out" other countries, is that he typically doesn't actually have a leg to stand on because he doesn't seem to know anything about anything. Take the Canadian Diary complaint. No-one seems to know where Trump pulled the 300% tariff untruth
https://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/trade-commerce/tariff-tarif/2018/01-99/ch04-2018-eng.pdf [cbsa-asfc.gc.ca]
You're welcome.
Source: Am Canadian. We do tariff dairy, not just from the US, but from everywhere (France cheeses please!) so protect our own dairy farmer through a supply management scheme meant to garantee them to revenue. Welcome to Protectionism, it's ok when we do it, but somehow not when Trump does it. It's hypocritical. Trump is right as far as Dairy is concerned.
Re: (Score:3)
See, it looks as simple as protecting a share of profits from some group of your voters, but the real reason is self-preservation. Imagine the case where large US dairy farms (who are noted to produce too much product) continually dump cheap dairy onto the Canadian market. The real issue is that Canadian
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you have any examples (specific quotations would be awesome but I think that might be asking too much) of bad science advice people have given with regards to Korea?
I'm imagining something like "Mr. President, they'll never get an atomic bomb, because according to my phrenology charts, Koreans just aren't smart enough to be able to accomplish it" but I'm just making it up and haven't actually heard such an anecdote. But you have obviously heard some things like that offered to prior presidents, so pleas
Yes there are specific examples (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you have any examples (specific quotations would be awesome but I think that might be asking too much) of bad science advice people have given with regards to Korea?
Well the scientists working with intelligence agencies have been wrong about the speed at which North Korean could develop nuclear weapons and delivery technology basically forever - from the most recent example [nytimes.com]:
" At the start of Donald Trump's presidency, American intelligence agencies told the new administration that while North Korea had built the bomb, there was still ample time - upward of four years - to slow or stop its development of a missile capable of hitting an American city with a nuclear warhead."
But this kind of terrible under-estimation goes back decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically the first Science Advisers were to advise on how to make a nuclear weapon and immolate people a few hundred thousand at a time.
Interesting stance for the NYTs to take.
Re:Advice (Score:4, Insightful)
The people giving advice on Korea have been fucking it up for 60-ish years, and REALLY fucking it up for 25 resulting in a viable nuclear program. So I wouldn't listen to them either.
Well, at least they haven't started WWIII over the issue up until now.
Maybe without all those advisers, Trump will be able to change that.
Yes they have (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, at least they haven't started WWIII over the issue up until now.
They very much did by allowing to let North Korean (and Iran) get within one launch or a smuggled shipping port nuke away from starting WWIII (or at least a nuclear conflict).
You can start wars through inaction as well action, you know.
Just because the nuclear shot has not been fired does not mean the war has not begin.
I mean, we have dead U.S. soldiers (from Iran and North Korea) and everything... how is that not a war?
Re:Yes they have (Score:5, Insightful)
Simply redefining words to mean anything you want is not a valid way to make a point.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The word is clear, as are the deeds (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if I grant your couple of [citation needed] deaths, I wasn't talking about typical low-level friction (and your definition of any death of any soldier anywhere as a "war" is just plain stupid). I specifically said "WWIII", which is well known by everyone, apparently except you, to mean a major, probably nuclear, war amongst superpowers.
We are not now, and have never been, fighting WWIII. Even the Cold War, which had plenty of dead soldiers on all sides, was not WWIII.
Re: Yes they have (Score:5, Interesting)
Partial listing:
Racism, Tax, Coverage, Equality, Freedom, Rights, Prosperity, Science, Rape, Marriage, Man, Woman, Left, Right, Unemployment, Inflation, Fair, Corrupt
I'm sure I missed a few...
Re:Advice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Advice (Score:5, Interesting)
Trump could cure cancer, elevate world hunger, and invent weather control and the left would still attack him. There is literally no way for him to be successful in their eyes.
I believe that THIS STATEMENT in and of itself is part of the problem. The constant bickering between people that define themselves as being either 'Left' or 'Right', or 'Conservative' or 'Liberal'. I tell people that I'm a old school Republican, I believe in more power at the State level with a lean and efficient Federal Government. With that said, Trump is a fucking IDIOT who constantly and consistently contradicts himself, lies about everything, refuses to admit that he is or was wrong about anything and believes himself to be the smartest person in the room, on every subject. He holds himself above people that are experts in their field and he has no tact or grace. Trump would NEVER be able to accomplish any of the things you mentioned because he is not able to keep qualified people on his staff.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump could cure cancer,
I doubt it.
elevate world hunger,
That one I could believe.
and invent weather control
Which he would use to ensure that his golf courses were always sunny, and the competition's would always have thunderstorms over them.
I think we were doing just fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Kim would be a real mad man if he stopped trying to get nukes after seeing what we do to people who relinquish them
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, you lie. We didn't "arrange for" Qaddafi to get killed. He arranged that through an unusually cruel dictatorship. We let it happen, by putting a little bit of ordinance into keeping his military from wholesale slaughter of civillians. Saddam of course, you know, and deny, was delbierately keeping inspectors away from certain facilities while also shooting at aircraft patrolling the no fly zone he agreed to. Shooting at military aircraft is, of course, an act of war. Clearly, it was the Americans
Re: (Score:3)
How we spent 1 billion overthrowing Libya [thedailybeast.com]
Obama's worst mistake The Atlantic [theatlantic.com]
The us ruined Libya [bostonglobe.com]
Re:I think we were doing just fine (Score:5, Informative)
I suppose the bit where we didn't actually find any sign that they were producing weapons of mass destruction after deposing Saddam is lost on you? The worst they found were old gas weapons left over from the Iran-Iraq war a decade earlier and those were largely unusable. What we did find were a shitload of documents that confirmed that they'd given up trying to develop WMDs.
But hey, who cares about facts anymore. If a politician says it, it's your patriotic duty to believe it, right?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that's the GP's point. Saddam caved to the US demands for weapons inspectors and stopped developing WMDs of any kind. In response, we killed him.
Re:I think we were doing just fine (Score:4, Interesting)
Saddam kicked out the inspectors [kitsapsun.com] which were supposed to verify the lack of a nuclear program. Why on earth would he do that if he didn't have a nuclear program?
The answer is, because he wanted to convince Iran, his regional rival, that he had a nuclear program. Unfortunately, he did too good a job, and convinced the Bush administration too, and we got a very destructive war as a result.
WRT Libya (and all the more so Ukraine a couple decades earlier) you are correct that the US broke its promises and gave a massive incentive to proliferators in the future.
Re:Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
The US have been unable to stop the Sovjets from obtaining nuclear weapons. And the Chinese. And the Indians. And the Pakistani. And Israel.
Where do people suddenly get there idea that the US could have stopped North Korea? I think they're wrong.
I can understand that people might be a bit upset about that, but there it is.
China, the provider of North Korea's military umbrella, has fought the US to a stalemate in Korea before. And it has only gotten stronger since then. Much stronger. It has kept North Korea in the saddle militarily, politically, and economically ... and there's nothing the US could have done about that.
The only way North Korea will let of of its nukes is if it wants to. Dangling the view of South Korea has an appeal. Except for the one person in charge. Unfortunately Dirty Donald and his adminstration have made it abundantly clear to North Korea's dictator that he'll be signing his own death warrant if he lets go of his nukes. Do Mr. Bolton's helpful comments on Khadaffi's example ring a bell? Gods, what a fiasco.
Granted, some arm-twisting can sometimes go a long way. But only competent arm-twisting. Not the incoherent verbiage coming out of the WH now.
If there's any message that Dirty Donald is managing to convey, that's: if you're enough of a criminal (Putin, Xi, Duterte) you can be his best pal. At least he'll respect you. If you're an honest, decent type of politician then he'll squeeze you like the sucker you are until you drop dead or put up a real fight. Whichever comes first.
Let's not forget that Mr. Trump has proudly bankrupted several of the companies he ran, and his most impressive accomplishment so far has been to weather those bankruptcies wile avoiding jail time.
It's fascinating how he seems to be repeating that accomplishment with the US Inc. amidst acclaim from political flat earthers who feel disgruntled about something, hear Dirty Donald's incoherent rants, and decide well ... at least it's different from the usual ... let's give it a try.
Re:Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
North Korea has been demanding 1 v 1 talks with the USA for 60 years. In all that time the US has counter-demanded that NK must make peace with all interested parties whilst seated at the same table. Suddenly everything has changed.
Now the North has nukes the US gives in and rushes to a face saving meeting, whilst passing it off as a victory of some kind. The best part is that NK has forced the US to offer a complete removal of trade restrictions and give guarantees of regime stability as well as peace (including withdrawal of troops probably) . All because the North Koreans finally realised that in the past they had nothing to bargain with and decided to do something about it. Trump will have to pass this off as a major win. Nixon declared a huge win in Vietnam as he ran away from the loss. This will be bigger.
In the meantime, Trump has removed the only barrier that stood in the way of Iran following the same path. They can simply trade with NK now for all the tech and materials they desire. Oil for bombs? No problem. The US has shown that it will surrender immediately you have a bomb and it will bully you mercilessly until you do have one.
This opens up a path to a brighter future for the world. If the answer to halting gun violence is all the good people having a gun then surely the answer to bomb threat is all the good countries having a bomb. One step toward every nation guaranteeing lasting peace through the acquisition of "family atomics".
Re:Advice (Score:5, Insightful)
The people giving advice on Korea have been fucking it up for 60-ish years, and REALLY fucking it up for 25 resulting in a viable nuclear program. So I wouldn't listen to them either.
What exactly has been "fucked up"? There's been a ceasefire for 60 years, the two Koreas still exist and are habitable, one of them has become one of the richest, most prosperous countries on earth. That's not ideal, but it's more than could reasonably expected in 1953.
Re: Advice (Score:5, Informative)
For the leftists out there that's called capitalism. North Korea communist socialist shithole. South Korea a shining beacon of capitalist freedom. You get North Korea when you vote Democrats or the left.
Well, it seems to me that the Democratic Party is the more pro-business one these days as Republicans are regressing into protectionist alt-right populism, destroying stability, amassing debt, eroding the rule of law and damaging trade relations with the the world. Also blue states, on average, produce more private sector jobs and have more GDP per capita.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is criticism. That alone is enough for the critics.
Agreed. And not only that, one guy's opinion about what Trump should or should not be doing becomes this headline: "In the Trump Administration, Science Is Unwelcome. So Is Advice." Talk about hyperbole.
Who needs science (Score:3, Insightful)
The ultimate in Nerd Idocy (Score:2, Insightful)
White House science adviser or senior counselor trained in nuclear physics.
Why would you need EITHER of those people to meet with someone like Kim Jong-un?
They are not going to meet about science. They are not going to talk about how nuclear weapons are constructed.
They are going to meet for the purpose of North Korea *giving up* nuclear weapons and rejoining with the south.
What kind of "experts" can really help you here? Kim Jong-un is not exactly well balanced. What you need is someone who can steer a p
Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly the discussion the leaders of the G7 are having today about Donald Trump.
Yes, without success (Score:2, Interesting)
This is exactly the discussion the leaders of the G7 are having today about Donald Trump.
And what luck are they having? None at all it would seem. Trump steamrolled them at the G7 summit and uncovered a lot of uncomfortable facts about a long-time status quo the G7 would rather have remained obscured (like a 270% tariff on dairy going into Canada, a very real and chilling fact about which I had no idea previously).
Meanwhile Trump has actually gotten the U.S., NK and SK together in a room to talk for the f
Re:Yes, without success (Score:5, Informative)
(like a 270% tariff on dairy going into Canada, a very real and chilling fact about which I had no idea previously).
Then I suppose you also don't know that the US provides over $22 billion a year in direct subsidies to US dairy producers, accounting for over 40% of all dairy profits?
That's right -- American taxpayers are paying for >40% of all dairy production in the US. That has lead to a significant oversupply of milk and cheese products which the US can't sell domestically, so they want to be able to dump it on other countries well below market value (again -- it's government subsidized).
That is why Canada has a tariff on US dairy products. Canada doesn't subsidize its dairy industry at all. The tariffs came into effect because the US insists on subsidizing its dairy industry with more US tax dollars than the entire Canadian dairy industry is worth [dairyinfo.gc.ca].
And you know what? Even with all that, Canada imports more dairy from the US than it exports (see above link).
Want to get rid of the tariffs? Get rid of your own market distorting subsidies first, then we can talk.
Yaz
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Thanks for the context. Isn't it amazing that at this stage of the game, people are still willing to take an out of context 'fact' from Trump and use it to justify his nonsense. People, Trump lies. All the time. Black is White, Up is Down class lies.
Trump's rant about imports of cars from Canada did make me wonder about the context of that. It's American car manufacturers building cars in Canada and importing them, NAFTA style back into the US. But why? This is Canada - not Mexico, let alone China.
Re:Yes, without success (Score:5, Informative)
suspect it's more like they always built cars for the Canadian market in Canada, and with NAFTA, it makes economic sense to build one model in one plant and another in another. So the models built in Canada end up getting imported here and vice versa. But is there more to it?
There are a few reasons, including those that you've touched upon already: better educated population and universal medicare help, but so does cheap and reliable electricity (most of which is green in the main automative manufacturing centres due to our abundance of hydroelectric generation capacity), access to raw materials, and the lower Canadian dollar (which makes worker wages competitive). Automative in Canada actually has very strong unions, but even with that the manufacturers get highly educated talent that costs them less money to maintain.
Most automotive manufacturing in Canada tends to be mid-to-higher end lines; we don't have a wide variety of vehicle types, and don't make anything either compact or smaller, or in pickup truck form; Industry Canada has a list of passenger vehicles made in Canada in 2017 here [ic.gc.ca] (this list doesn't include military or commercial or mass transit vehicles, or anything that floats or flies).
One thing I will note, it isn't as if automotive manufacturers have been making a run on building assembly facilities in Canada. Most of the facilities in use have been around for decades. Thus, we can conclude that the value is sufficient to keep building vehicles with good sale values in these Canadian facilities, but not so much that manufacturing is leaving the US (or elsewhere) for Canada.
Yaz
Re:Yep, problems all around (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry for bringing logic to a shit-flinging party, can't help myself.
Unfortunately, you didn't. You have to look at absolute numbers, and not percentages, because the subsidies have a multiplicative effect. They not only change the profitability of milk, but they encourage overproduction (because the subsidies are based on production), which drives down prices.
Indeed, according to government numbers, the US has a 5-1 price edge against Canada in dairy pricing due to subsidies [globalnews.ca]. That should call for a 500% subsidy to fully correct for, and yet we only charge a 270% tariff.
You'd expect if the tariffs were completely out-of-line that nobody in Canada would import dairy form the US, and yet in 2016 alone we imported more than $631 million in dairy from the US. For a population smaller than that of California.
Again -- talk to your own government first. I'd be more than happy to see both of our countries (and the EU, which has the largest dairy subsidies in the world) drop dairy tariffs -- but the unfair subsidies have to come down first. It's the subsidies that have caused the tariffs, not the other way around. Canada is hardly in some power position where we can drop our tariffs and hope for some form of "general goodwill" that the US will stop unfair subsidies and attempts at dumping. The Canadian Government has been clear in the past that if the subsidies go away, we won't need the tariffs anymore.
Yaz
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yaz Said..
Sorry for bringing logic to a shit-flinging party, can't help myself.
Unfortunately, you didn't. You have to look at absolute numbers, and not percentages, because the subsidies have a multiplicative effect. They not only change the profitability of milk, but they encourage overproduction (because the subsidies are based on production), which drives down prices.
Indeed, according to government numbers, the US has a 5-1 price edge against Canada in dairy pricing due to subsidies. That should call for
Re:Yep, problems all around (Score:5, Informative)
correcting because your own farmers can't produce milk at the same price because they are more inefficient is very much protectionism
Canada has higher food quality regulations than the US does [albertamilk.com]. We don't permit the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) in milk producing cows for one. We also don't permit the high levels of antibiotic use the US dairies are allowed to use in the US. The maximum Somatic Cell Count permitted in Canadian milk is nearly half that allowed in US milk.
So yes, in some ways Canadian dairy production is slightly less efficient, but only because we don't feed our cows growth hormones which are detrimental to both bovine and human health, and don't allow all the blood and pus and other non-milk cellular material the US permits in their milk products.
But again -- if US dairies are willing to meet our dairy requirements and stop with the subsidies worth more than the entire Canadian dairy industry is worth -- you'll find Canada ready to talk. Again -- the tariffs were in response to continued US Government subsidies, and not the other way around.
Yaz
Re:Yep, problems all around (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, NAFTA does allow permit this for dairy products:
NAFTA, Annex 703.2, Section B, Part 7 states: [nafta-sec-alena.org]
7. Notwithstanding paragraph 6 and Article 309:
a) the rights and obligations of the Parties under Article XI:2(c)(i) of the GATT and those rights as incorporated by Article 309 shall apply with respect to trade in agricultural goods only to the dairy, poultry and egg goods set out in Appendix 703.2.B.7; and
b) with respect to such dairy, poultry and egg goods that are qualifying goods, either Party may adopt or maintain a prohibition or restriction or a customs duty on the importation of such good consistent with its rights and obligations under the GATT.
Appendix 703.2.B.7 lists the specific items which qualify under this part.
Likewise, Article 712 states:
Right to Take Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
1. Each Party may, in accordance with this Section, adopt, maintain or apply any sanitary or phytosanitary measure necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health in its territory, including a measure more stringent than an international standard, guideline or recommendation.
Right to Establish Level of Protection
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section, each Party may, in protecting human, animal or plant life or health, establish its appropriate levels of protection in accordance with Article 715.
Scientific Principles
3. Each Party shall ensure that any sanitary or phytosanitary measure that it adopts, maintains or applies is:
a) based on scientific principles, taking into account relevant factors including, where appropriate, different geographic conditions;
b) not maintained where there is no longer a scientific basis for it; and
c) based on a risk assessment, as appropriate to the circumstances.
Non-Discriminatory Treatment
4. Each Party shall ensure that a sanitary or phytosanitary measure that it adopts, maintains or applies does not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between its goods and like goods of another Party, or between goods of another Party and like goods of any other country, where identical or similar conditions prevail.
So in effect, dairy is exempt from most NAFTA rules, and setting human health standards for products is perfectly legal, so long as it is non-discriminatory.
Yaz
Re: Yep, problems all around (Score:5, Interesting)
Where is the science that any of that is actually bad for either cows or humans? The FDA has some of the strictest regulations in the world, yet you say they're letting farmers poison the population with milk?
Fortunately, Health Canada puts their research online:
Executive summary: it's much worse for cows than for people, but there are still some concerns about immune responses in some people. So it's mostly about the health of the cows (and the milk produced by potentially unhealthy cows) rather than a direct effect of rbST in milk on humans.
Yaz
Re:Yep, problems all around (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yep, problems all around (Score:5, Interesting)
Both you and Yaz are falling for Trump's gimmick. If you think this is about DAIRY TARIFFS, you've already missed what happened.
Trump wants to destabilize the existing relationship so he can "renegotiate" a mafia strong-arm position that puts the US in an isolationist posture. He's going to do it on every front, Mexico, Canada, G7, everywhere. The exact tariffs themselves are just dog and pony shows. The fact that you guys are mired in discussions about dairy tariffs shows that you are missing the forest for the trees. Trump would do this NO MATTER WHICH TARIFFS are at issue.
And he insulted Trudeau as part of his bully strategy. Trudeau didn't say anything that he hadn't already said before. Trump would have taken any statement and pretended it was offensive. The goal of Trump is to bully and harass, laws and regulations be damned. He's the King of the US and he doesn't care what you, or any of the voting public think. He can break the law, shoot some guy on the street (his point, not mine), and pardon himself.
You're witnessing the birth of a Putin-esque oligarchic faux-capitalist government with a Supreme Leader. Stop arguing about milk and pay attention to the big picture.
Re:Yes, without success (Score:4, Interesting)
But there's plenty enough there to see in this one instance that he is betraying the interests of our country right then and there; the G-8 kicked out Russia for invading and annexing Crimea, and Trump is ignoring that and trying to reward Russia most likely for their aid in getting him elected. I guess Russian information and psychological warfare against the US is ok if it helps Trump, huh? Add in his pretty explicit attempt to start a trade war and sandbag on the other diplomatic measures with our allies, he seems pretty hellbent on tearing apart the post WWII western alliances.
If Trump's not a puppet of Putin, then it is getting to the point that is pretty hard to see that distinction, and maybe doesn't even matter anymore. He's giving Putin precisely what Putin wants: the US and our alliances divided, weak, and focused internally.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure have been a lot of indictments for a "stale" issue.
Re: Yes, without success (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are too lazy to click on the chart, it shows that the Federal guilty plea rate is 97%. Only 3% go to trial.
So your position is that all the drug dealers, bank robbers, con artists, kidnappers, tax cheats, money launderers, counterfeiters, smugglers, mad bombers, interstate sex traffickers, etc were railroaded because "Indictments don't mean shit if you don't get a jury trial".
It's great to know that you support a cause that has been taken up by liberal advocacy groups [theatlantic.com] all over the county. I know how hard it is to stand up for liberal causes on Slashdot because of all the right wing trolls, and I salute your commitment to freedom.
Re: Yes, without success (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously? I don't about you, but I would like a nuclear physicist to tell me if Un is bullshitting me.
You admire speaking plainly? OK. I find your ignorance baffling. I cannot believe people are still supporting Trump considering everything he's fucking up.
He's rolled back Obama's ban on coal miners dumping their waste into rivers and stream - which poisoning the water; DRINKING water for people. And god forbid if you like to fish or enjoy the water - it's fucked.
He's neutered the CFPB - the best thing our government has done for us little people in decades. Banks are now free to steal from us again.
He's totaling screwing up trade deals that took years to negotiate because of his childish and ignorant beliefs on trade.
His real estate and deal making acumen was all a creation of his publicist.
He's stirring up more trouble in the Middle East which damage this country for many many years to come.
Unless one is an Evangelical Christian Kook who thinks he's some of messenger from your skydaddy, this guy is just fucking all of us over.
Re: (Score:3)
Bashing Obama and ignoring Bush is means you are either suffering from an organic brain disorder that has wrecked your memory or you are delusional and should be involuntarily committed. There is a third option that applies in your case: you are a white supremacist and overt fascist.
Get the fuck out of my country and go to Russia where yo
Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry to point this out sparky, but the Bush administration never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. They claimed it was supporting terrorism.
You're right. They just claimed Iraq supported and armed terrorists, and left it to the public to draw the big fat line between Iraq and the terrorists that bombed the trade towers.
The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry to point this out sparky, but the Bush administration never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9-11.
The Bush administration talked about it several times as a way to conflate in the publics' minds unrelated connections. Cheney reported several times that Mohammad Atta, the 9/11 field leader, met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague. Both the CIA and the FBI said no such meeting took place. Condoleezza Rice received intelligence estimates that there was little to no link between Saddam Hussein and al-Quaeda, he felt they were a threat to his power given that they don't respect country governance. Bu
Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy (Score:5, Interesting)
The only way North Korea will rejoin with the south is if Kim Jong-un is allowed to rule it. Will you consider that a victory? I certainly would not. South Korea is a thriving regulated capitalist economy with it's own advanced industry and government. Would you turn the south over to a deranged socialist dictator?
Kim Jong-un isn't going to give up control of the North. Reunification would require bringing the north under control of the south.
Trump might, however, create some kind of deal. The only leverage he has is lifting economic sanctions or war. There's no guarantee that the North would either negotiate in good faith or adhere to the "new rules". They have never honored their agreements before.
The problem isn't the intelligence, prior attempts, or the people who worked on the problem before...
The problem is the North Korean regime. Sadly, Trump is over his head. Claiming otherwise is to ignore the character of the man.
All politicians are sociopaths. That doesn't guarantee intelligence or good decision making.
North and South combining is a massive victory (Score:3)
The only way North Korea will rejoin with the south is if Kim Jong-un is allowed to rule it. Will you consider that a victory? I certainly would not.
I wouldn't consider that much of a victory but I also don't consider it a possibility so it really doesn't warrant any thought.
Kim Jong-un isn't going to give up control of the North
Oh, you didn't mean ALL of Korea. (or did you? Not very clear). Nor does he have to, he just has to open up borders and trade between the two countries. That *is* very possible.
Re:North and South combining is a massive victory (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but Trump is actually a strong sociopath unlike presidents for decades before him.
Um, Trump is a sociopath that makes 'strong' statements and routinely backs down from them. But he's so strong that he refuses to admit he's backed down. I guess as long as the press has some modicum of 'The Emporor's New Clothes' respect left for the office, he can get away with that. But how exactly does that make him strong?
And how the fuck have we gotten to the point where somebody like you, who seem nominally literate, will fawn over somebody being a sociopath - strong or otherwise? Or are paid trolls being dispatched to such obscure corners of the Internet as Slashdot? Now that's scary.
Re:North and South combining is a massive victory (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not the press man.
They are hoarse from pointing out his lack of clothing for the last 9-12 months.
The problem is Mr. Trump's authoritarian followers. Read up on the authoritarian mindset. It's present in about 25% of any population. It's capable of flipping on a dime repeatedly to conform to whatever the leader's new reality is.
It is probably a huge survival trait in authoritarian regimes.
If Mr. Trump says the sky is black, then to the authoritarian's, it's sincerely black.
If the next day he says it is yellow, then it's sincerely yellow to them.
They have little to no cognitive dissonance.
We did a lot of research into this after world war 2.
As long as democracy, honesty, and a free press are valued by the leadership- then the authoritarians value it. But they can flip on a dime to not valuing democracy, honesty, and a free press. Consider how many flipped from hating Russia to loving Russia in under 6 months. People who disliked Russia their entire lives suddenly were fine with Russia.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I defy anyone to claim that Kim Jong-un is harder to work with than the upper echelons of the Teamsters.
One last point - the very LAST person you want to bring to a nuclear disarmament party is a nuclear weapons expert, that just screams you are not truly serious about them getting rid of nuclear weapons and they would act accordingly.
Um your comparing Kim Jong-un to a labor union leader? Really? They don't have labor unions in north korea. If you don't do what the party wants, you go to prison, and likely your family too.
A nuclear weapons expert could explain what proposals would _really_ mean, making it less likely to have a bad proposal ratified. Not bringing one, just means you don't care about substance, and are just in this for a publicity stunt. Hell Trump may even know and expect that Kim-Jong-un is going to agree to some wo
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of "experts" can really help you here? Kim Jong-un is not exactly well balanced. What you need is someone who can steer a power-mad and basically unbalanced person into doing something you want them to do, to point out how it's really in their best interests also.
Trump is probably the ONLY president who can pull this off. Because unlike any of the past presidents for many decades, he will speak plainly, and as a result he actually will be more trusted and respected by someone who doesn't really know who to trust.
And his record of keeping his word will certainly help a lot in such negotiations!
Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy (Score:5, Interesting)
Nonsense. Trump will probably nod his head and agree to something Kim says that sounds good (like he did in the DACA 'negotiations' at the White House), and then when he gets home and his advisers tell him he can't agree to that, he'll reverse himself, and launch a Twitter attack on Kim to shift the blame and insist he didn't say what he plainly said.
The reason to have scientists and Korea experts in the room is to make sure Trump doesn't go off half-cocked and make a fool of himself. Of course, he's incapable of either seeing or acknowledging when he has made a fool of himself, so the whole thing's probably just a photo-op for him at this point.
Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy (Score:5, Insightful)
If you focus on Kim Jong-Un, his interests are pretty straightforward even if his methods and rule are extreme. He wants to stay alive and stay in power, and balance the internal threats from a horribly subjugated population and potentially ambitions rivals in the military and his family with the external threats of the US, South Korea, Japan, and yes, even China. So what sort of uninformed bullshit will baffle Kim into losing grip on his primary interests and capitulating? And why in the world would he believe the promises of the highest profile pathological liar in the world, the one who just reneged on a similar sort of deal with Iranians, proving that the US very much is not a reliable dealmaker right now.
And you need the nuclear weapons experts to prove that any program to dismantle the weapons program works, as if you walk in blind on the basic scientific and engineering details of the nuclear programs then you will end up blind as to the effectiveness of any disarmament measures. Not really hard for the North Koreans to cheat (which they've done before) if you don't even have the basic competence and mechanisms to verify compliance with a potential disarmament pledge.
Perhaps you don't what to have everyone working on the nitty gritty details coming in and chatting it up with Kim in the summit, but that brings forth the lie to how this summit is supposed to be a magical way to solve the problem. Normally these high profile summits with leaders just confirm the lower level detailed negotiations and diplomacy that lead up to them and provide a bunch of nice photo ops, and last I checked the prep work to actually draft out then cement a deal has not been done yet, likely intentionally.
I could get more sardonic and sarcastic, but if you've glanced at least a bit at Trump's business history like I have then you should probably be even more pessimistic about relying on the mythological art of the deal. The multiple bankruptcies are just the tip of the iceberg.
Um... because you would want someone (Score:3)
Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy just had a toddler temper tantrum with Canada and now he's supposed to be talking to the most crazy dictator out there and we think he can accomplish something? Sure, we *should* be talking. But we should be prepared too, get the facts too before negotiating. He should know how many nukes we have, should know the history of the Korean war, know why the North and South don't trust each other, know why North Korea distrusts America, know the history of other negotiations in the past, and so forth.
Trump was good at deal making in the early days. Later on though, when word got around that his deals resulted in you getting shafted, he had much more problems making the deals. He's got a massive ego that makes him erroneously think that he's a good negotiator, and an ego big enough to seriously screw up the talks. Just look at how he had a toddler tantrum at Canada, does you honestly think that North Korea will be easier for him to deal with than Canada?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The ultimate in Nerd Idocy (Score:5, Informative)
Trump ..., he will speak plainly
Except, he does not. When he speeks the sentences are so split up and often mixes in lots of unrelated things, and has a (lack of) flow that makes it is really hard to follow. In fact this is the one thing that is easy to make parody of Donald Trump, to mimic his form of speaking. To parody the actual content of what he is say is on the other hand very hard because of the crazy things he say. For instance "My nuclear button is bigger than his" would be a natural thing to try to parody him on except he acutally manager to say that himself for real...
For an excample of how he does not speaks plainly, consider this [snopes.com]:
“Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart — you know, if you’re a conservative Republican, if I were a liberal, if, like, OK, if I ran as a liberal Democrat, they would say I’m one of the smartest people anywhere in the world — it’s true! — but when you’re a conservative Republican they try — oh, do they do a number — that’s why I always start off: Went to Wharton, was a good student, went there, went there, did this, built a fortune — you know I have to give my like credentials all the time, because we’re a little disadvantaged — but you look at the nuclear deal, the thing that really bothers me — it would have been so easy, and it’s not as important as these lives are — nuclear is powerful; my uncle explained that to me many, many years ago, the power and that was 35 years ago; he would explain the power of what’s going to happen and he was right, who would have thought? — but when you look at what’s going on with the four prisoners — now it used to be three, now it’s four — but when it was three and even now, I would have said it’s all in the messenger; fellas, and it is fellas because, you know, they don’t, they haven’t figured that the women are smarter right now than the men, so, you know, it’s gonna take them about another 150 years — but the Persians are great negotiators, the Iranians are great negotiators, so, and they, they just killed, they just killed us.”
While this is probably a cherry-picked example of worst cases there is, it is not exceptional and far of his average.
Well, that would matter... (Score:4, Insightful)
...if this meeting was something other than a photo-op. I don't think anything of substance will be discussed, and the only question is when exactly will the name-calling start again.
In the obama administration (Score:2, Insightful)
science was also unwelcome when it came to facts like sexual dimorphism, the 'wage gap', and 'patriarchy theory.'
Ideologues hate inconvenient truth.
should keep quiet... (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people like to blame Trump, but he is a symptom of the US Environment. When Education is constantly cut for a period of 40 years and constant hate towards educated people, this is how things end up.
On TV you see nothing but Reality Shows and shows talking about Ancient Aliens and other such things. You end you with a population that believes Science is fake and thinks Angels and other such things will come and 'save us'.
More people seem to believe in pseudoscience (wikipedia) [wikipedia.org] than anything else, thus you get a Trump and I do not see that changing
No scientist is needed ... (Score:4, Interesting)
... because the Americans are anti-science, anyway.
The People voted and it's their right to reject science.
They have the right to want coal and oil jobs, and to prevent nuclear power plant shutdowns.
They have the right to elect politicians who will deregulate industry so sales will go up.
Americans want to be an isolationist, nationalistic, under-educated, Evangelical Christian, English-speaking country and that's their right.
If and when Americans decide to change direction, they will communicate such via the election booth.
Until then, all's right with the world.
Re:No scientist is needed ... (Score:4, Funny)
Until then, alt's right with the world.
FTFY
Slashdot Mods No Better than Trump (Score:2)
See recent Slashdot submission titled Petroglyph Explanation Remains Ignored After 15 Years. [slashdot.org] This situation with Trump lacking a science advisor is not especially different in that the person making these petroglyph claims, Anthony Peratt, is a government scientist specializing in high-energy density plasmas and nuclear physics, and has even advised the US government on the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Submission ...
Really msmash? We've sunk to this? (Score:3)
Just to be clear (Score:4, Insightful)
So the trump administration is going to be the first administration in the past few decades to negotiate de-nuclearization in North Korea without a senior White House science advisor at the table (or even in the administration, right?
And every other administration for the last few decades has had a senior White House science advisor at the table for such talks, right?
Well, honestly, every prior administration that negotiated with North Korea got rolled and wound up pouring money, aid on North Korea while they kept working on getting the bomb.
Do we really need to repeat the failures of prior administrations? Why didn't the presence of a senior White House science advisor prevent all the prior administrations from signing flawed agreements?
Re: (Score:3)
There's no such thing as a 'scientist' (Score:3, Insightful)
I work with a lot of physicists. I have three masters degrees myself. There is no such thing a 'scientist' is the sense that there is someone who is qualified advise on nuclear weapons, cybersecurity and AGW. As I said I work with physicist and to many of them think they are competent to speak on any subject, which is of course bollocks.
If you want to know about nuclear weapons find a nuclear weapons expert, who might be a physicist, but more likely is a nuclear engineer or might even be a historian or a political science major, who has specialize in disarmament and disarmament verification.
if you want to know about cybersecurity ask a cybersecurity expert. Having a physicist science adviser and asking them about cybersecurity makes as much sense as asking a biologist or a philosopher.
As for AGW I'm sure there's a propagandist around to give pointers on how to use panic to transfer wealth or you could find someone who knows statistics and model building to explain to the credulous how science really works.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
South Korea credits Trump - why can't you? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they do but South Korea credits Trump [cnn.com] for talks with North Korea - wouldn't they be in a little better position to know who to credit than you?
I mean, for decades there has been the opposite of progress, with North Korea developing nuclear weapons unchecked, killing soldiers from South Korea and America without repercussion. The government of South Korea has been as it is for a very long time.
The only variable in this large equation that has changed is the introduction of Trump. So yes South K
Re: (Score:3)
President Moon rightly figured out the the easiest way to get Trump to go along with something is to simply give him the credit.
Re: (Score:2)
When North Korean re-joins with the south, taking away a huge potential problem for much of the world - who will you *thank*?
Kenny Rogers had a #1 hit in 1978 with a song that could provide you with some valuable and much needed advice.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the re-unification creates a democratic state, I for one would be be quite happy.
My worry is that with Trump involved he might mix up the 'good' and 'bad' Korea and give control to the North.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:His VP is a well known Religious Zealot (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find odd is that there's so many pro Trump folks on /. (which is ostensibly a site for pro-science nerds)
Many folks here on /. are indeed pro-science nerds. Many are also libertarian and don't like government regulation. Of the viable candidates, Trump was the most likely to reduce government regulation. Personally I am not a big fan of the president, but his election wasn't a surprise to me, nor is the support for him here on /.
Re:Fucking Stupid Anti-Trump Garbage (Score:5, Informative)
I know we are in a 1984 post truth age and have always been at war with Eurasia, but the relationship with North Korea has always fluctuated up and down because they are duplicitous and skilled at using extortion to extract concessions. Trump's policy towards North Korea has been similarly schizophrenic, talking about "little Rocket man" and threatening with nuclear war, now switching back and forth to the nice nice, but what makes you think that if this doesn't provide the magic results that only those in the cult of personality seem to believe will occur that we won't go back to "fire and fury" on failure. John Bolton seems to have been brought in explicitly for the purpose of fire and fury.
The gratuitous f-bombs and hostility about posters on this subject suggest to me that the parent may just be a troll and treating it in good faith is a foolish endeavor, but if this what represents a widespread consensus of thought then we are in serious trouble.
Science requires evidence (Score:5, Informative)
His EPA chief is ignoring air and water quality research and reducing controls on water and air quality
He called Global Warming a Chinese hoax, despite the overwhelming condenses of peer reviewed science recognizing it
He opposes Net Neutrality and ignores studies that show eliminating it would have negative effects on the free exchange of ideas.
He and his VP support Abstinence based education even though it's been shown to be completely ineffective (again, by science).
Two words: Clean Coal.
Two more words: Betsy Devos
I could go on and on. The scientific position to take is that Trump is, in fact, anti-science. He doesn't believe in evidence and facts, preferring the "I substitute your reality with my own" school of thought. To call him anything but anti-science is itself anti-science. It's an attempt to ignore or refute reality itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The driving force of Science is the Free Market (Score:5, Insightful)
It takes resources to do Science; the best thing we've got to create flows of resources is a Free Market.
That's weird, I could have swore that the USSR was the first country in space. I'm also pretty sure that what has made the U.S. such a scientific powerhouse has been tons of federal grant money that flows into our universities for basic research. The free market turns that into money afterward. There's also the issue of all those nifty advancements brought about through NASA's research.
The free market is important, but when you make it the be-all, end-all, you'll find that things don't work out as well as Ayn Rand's stories would have you believe.