A New Report Documents Two Years of Science Being Scrubbed From .Gov Sites (vice.com)
373
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: A report published by the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI) on Monday found that language related to climate change has disappeared at an alarming pace since Trump took office in 2016. Across 5,301 pages -- ranging from websites belonging to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) -- the use of the terms "climate change," "clean energy," and "adaptation" plummeted by 26 percent between 2016 and 2018. Of the pages where "climate change" was stricken, more than half belong to the EPA. The EPA homepage was the 1,750th most-visited website in the U.S. in early 2019, according to the report, giving it more reach than Whitehouse.gov. But "unlike the much-discussed White House effort to question climate change findings, website changes go unannounced and are often beyond immediate public recognition," the report argues. "They insidiously undermine publicly-funded infrastructure for knowledge dissemination."
According to the report, clear scientific terminology on government websites was often replaced with politicized language such as "energy independence," a buzzword ripped directly from Trump's "America First Energy Plan" which demands an increase in fossil fuel production. The watchdog also found evidence of "diminished connections" between climate change and its effects on government websites, or quite literally, the breaking of links between public information about the topic.
According to the report, clear scientific terminology on government websites was often replaced with politicized language such as "energy independence," a buzzword ripped directly from Trump's "America First Energy Plan" which demands an increase in fossil fuel production. The watchdog also found evidence of "diminished connections" between climate change and its effects on government websites, or quite literally, the breaking of links between public information about the topic.
Science gets in the way ... (Score:2, Informative)
... of short-sighted, power-hungry, greedy morons. These people think they can discuss science away or simply hide it and reality will change.
Re:Science gets in the way ... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the new newness ... opinions and ideology (t|T)rump facts, and the dumb shit you believe is true if you keep saying it to people who want to believe it.
See, we're living in a post-truth era, where loudly expressed stupidity is held as just as valid as science, truth, and objective facts ... if reality doesn't fit your narrative, make up a new reality and know that the drooling idiots will still believe you, because they need to believe you and are incapable of recognizing blatant lies. They don't care about truth and facts.
I'm terrified of the fact that we live in a world where the overwhelming majority of humans are completely irrational, and completely immune to facts and evidence.
They just believe dumb shit like primitive people, and they are willing to be violent to defend those stupid beliefs.
Western countries are increasingly in the grips of rabid idiots, and unfortunately, in developing countries the unwashed and uneducated masses are also prone to outbreaks of mass stupidity with some regularity.
Humanity is pretty much fucked. The fucking stupid people are in ascendancy and rising up against facts, critical thinking, and science.
If it clashes with their ideology it must be false, and being false it must be discredited and vilified. To the point words like 'treason' get thrown around if you dare disagree. Or, you know, 'send them back' ... the most scarily Nazi rally thing you can imagine in America.
Kinda like burning witches, really. The idiots get whipped into a froth by the morons, and then you have a mob.
Increasingly, the world is degrading into collective mob mentalities. And mobs don't like/b science.
Re: Science gets in the way ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You uncritically believed for years that Donald Trump conspired with Russia to steal the 2016 election from Hillary, despite all evidence to the contrary, and literally none in support.
"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion." - Second sentence in the Mueller Report. [wikimedia.org] . You should read it. It goes into quite a lot of detail.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Clinton's e-mail server was hacked by the Russians too; Putin admitted as such. The Clintons have deep ties to the russians and eastern europe if you take the time to look.
The problem isn't Trump vs Clinton, or even Sanders not getting the seat.
The problem is Americans aren't investing in their government and expecting returns.
They aren't getting into groups, signing petitions, and peacably and civilly, with guns holstered, going to government halls and congressional chambers to arrest corrupt men and wome
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a straw man. He didn't say Russia didn't interfere (obviously they did, both nations have likely interfered with each others' governments dating back to the outbreak of the Cold War), he said Trump didn't conspire with Russia to steal the election. Mueller's report doesn't eliminate this possibility (quite the contrary, it deliberately leaves that possibility open), but it never came to the conclusion that Trump conspired with Russia.
But you're +5 insightful because all the mods here care about is mo
Re: Science gets in the way ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Science gets in the way ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In the Mueller report there are almost 200 pages describing collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign: "investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts." So there was plenty of collusion, but you are right that conspiracy was not proven, and that is because it very difficult to prove that beyond all doubt that two people came to an agreement to commit a crime and then proceeded to pursue that crime. The Trump Tower meeting with Trump Jr., Manafort, Kushmer and Russians was not a conspiracy simply because Mueller could not prove that the they knew that what they were doing was illegal.
That is a degree of mercy that most poorer people do not usually get to enjoy. As far as I know it making a claim like '...but your honour, my client Mr.Trump Jr. is so dumb and incompetent that he had no clue what he was doing' got you off the hook for a crime. The degree of leniency that stupid (Trump Jr.) and perverted (Epstein) people seem to get from the justice system increases in direct proportion with how wealthy they are.
Re: Science gets in the way ... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't remember seeing a claim like that. What I remember is that they had no evidence that a crime was committed. People can't be found guilty of a crime based on feelings and suspicions. You need evidence and facts. Everyone enjoys the luxury of being considered innocent until proven guilty... well, unless you are being prosecuted by a democrat. The really don't care as long as they get their way.
The Muller report said, and I quote verbatim: “On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful," Which basically means that the government felt it would not be able to disprove the proposition that all those present at that meeting, except perhaps the Russian agents, were too stupid and incompetent to realise that their conduct was unlawful. See Muller report Vol. 1, lower third of Page 187 (195): https://www.documentcloud.org/... [documentcloud.org] The lesson here is that if you ever get caught doing something illegal just claim to be a complete moron and that you didn't realise you were breaking the law. At that point the government will apparently first have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you (A) are not a moron and that (B) you knew what you were doing before they can (C) even charge you. That having been said I'd like to see that defence work for a black guy from East LA or some poor white guy from Alabama because apparently it works for a bunch of trust fund babies from New York but I'm not holding my breath.
Re: Science gets in the way ... (Score:4, Interesting)
>"too stupid and incompetent to know that what they were doing was criminal"
The legal term you are looking for is "knowingly and willfully". Why do you put so much bias into your posts?
It's a debating tactic I learned from Trump supporters, loud, abrasive, insulting and in your face. I figure that's their own mode of communications is only way to get through to people who tell me to my face that I and everybody like me at best 'needs a round to the head' and at worst 'should be thrown into an oven', those are verbatim quotes I got from Trump supporters from back when I was still polite.
You mean, innocent until proven guilty and the law being used to attempt was not broken if they were unaware and unwilling.
Can you prove they were willing to break the law even if they knew about it?
These people went to some of the finest Ivy League schools on the planet and we are supposed to believe that Jared Kushner and Trump Jr. are prime examples of the cream of that the American meritocracy can produce. Rest assured, they knew exactly what they were doing and that what they were doing was illegal. I just find it amusing that Mueller, one of the best legal minds in the US, thought that their defence was that are stupid and incompetent and that Mueller actually thought he would not be able to prove otherwise.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
... of short-sighted, power-hungry, greedy morons. These people think they can discuss science away or simply hide it and reality will change.
On some level many republican in power probably know that bullshit only takes you so far, and that reality will eventually punish us for ignoring truth. Trump has even said words like you can only take a con so far or to that affect.
Basically those in power, or a large amount of them at least, are simply playing for short term. They are okay with freedom burning, with truth burning, with decency burning, with ethics burning, going bankrupt, with the world's alliances fracturing and fraying, with the clima
Re: (Score:2)
... of short-sighted, power-hungry, greedy morons. These people think they can discuss science away or simply hide it and reality will change.
On some level many republican in power probably know that bullshit only takes you so far, and that reality will eventually punish us for ignoring truth. Trump has even said words like you can only take a con so far or to that affect.
Unfortunately most Americans have proved that distance you can "take" a con can be quite large if you keep feeding them what they want to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
And, who's gonna stop 'em?
Re: (Score:2)
... of short-sighted, power-hungry, greedy morons. These people think they can discuss science away or simply hide it and reality will change.
Oh, if I were a betting man, I'd wager that all of the science is safe somewhere. Scientists do have a history of going to great lengths to protect their data. One of the most illustrative is the Leningrad seed scientists: https://www.rbth.com/blogs/201... [rbth.com] Starving while keeping seeds safe.
This situation too shall come to pass
Re: (Score:2)
These people just think that they're going to be on top of the new order, just like they're at the top of this one. Their tiny little minds simply cannot fathom the idea that their money will not protect them when it all comes down.
Re: (Score:2)
This. A great way to identify the bad guys (or worse guys) in any conflict is to see which group is most hostile to science. It never fails. If the more science-denialist group ever seems to be the good guys, they will reveal themselves to be the bad/worse guys later (example: Soviets vs. Mujahideen).
Re: Science gets in the way ... (Score:5, Insightful)
An unprovable simulation model built on short-term data with massive error bands, which has failed to predict any future event that wasn't already predicted in the 1976 Farmer's Almanac as a result of natural cycles.
Based on this model, humanity is told they clearly must adopt socialism, drastically cutting ownership of private property, and wealth must be redistributed to non-whites.
You know... "science".
You fail spectacularly at recognizing the difference between scientists informing public policy, and politicians creating it.
You also fail at recognizing the scientific work that has gone into climate modeling, preferring instead to dismiss it with broad unsubstantiated invective. It has predicted trends quite well. If we dismiss the work of climate scientists, we do so at our peril.
Re: Science gets in the way ... (Score:5, Insightful)
There are also small-time morons that are incapable of accepting reality and have the extreme arrogance to think they know better than smart people that have looked at things for decades and done so the whole way with peer-review. The person you answered to is a nice example.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
ClickOnThis pointed out:
You also fail at recognizing the scientific work that has gone into climate modeling, preferring instead to dismiss it with broad unsubstantiated invective. It has predicted trends quite well. If we dismiss the work of climate scientists, we do so at our peril.
Actually, it hasn't.
Studies published by the likes of the IPCC have consistently underestimated the pace of global warming [nytimes.com]. It's happening much faster than any of their models have predicted.
I've been convinced for more than a decade now that's because climate is a chaotic system (in the Butterfly Effect sense), and climate models have yet to incorporate that. If I'm correct - and, thus far, all the evidence suggests that I am - we don't have thousands of years to prepare to evacuate
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, dismiss all of modern climate science as being driven by self-interest, and conveniently forget that the factions arguing against science have been doing so in the pursuit of profits and political power from the beginning.
The science is there, whether you like it or not, whether you read political motives or not, whether you call those who have found it persuasive "brainwashed fucking idiots" or not.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
New York and New Orleans under water.
Category 5 hurricanes every month.
Biblical floods, famine, wildfires, billions of people dead.
According to the models and predictions, that was 2015.
I must have missed those papers when they came out. Can you link to them for me?
Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Science gets in the way ... (Score:5, Informative)
Thermodynamics doesn't care about politics
Re: Science gets in the way ... (Score:4, Insightful)
And once again, none of this deals with the simple physical fact that increases GHGs, in particular, CO2, raises the thermal equalibrium of the lower atmosphere. Thermodynamics doesn't give a flying fuck. This idea that bitching about the Chinese or about some subjective criticism of climate modeling somehow suspends thermodynamics is the worst of kind of head-in-the-sand thinking.
Vandalism raised to the level of capital crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Need I point out that destroying information like that is basically the same thing as burning books just like the Nazis did under Hitler? Didn't think of that, now did you all?
Luckily for the rest of the world the Toddler-in-chief's reach does not extend to the governments of other countries nor into the private sector, so there's still plenty of real facts and real truth out there, he can't destroy it all.
Of course you know the possible real reason some shitbag like Trump does things like this, don't you? They want to keep the general public in the dark, and nice and calm and quiet, and they'll keep telling everyone 'climate change is a hoax!' right up until it's too late, civilzation starts falling apart, then The Rich (and Trump and his conservative buddies) will retreat to their private, self-contained compounds, with their private armies to protect them, where they will live in comfort until The End, and their guards will shoot at the rest of the people who try to get in because they're starving, drowning, or baking to death in killer heatwaves.
Vote Democrat in 2020, folks. We have to get the criminals out of our government before it's too late.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
To be fair, no information is destroyed. It's just removed from some servers, where it wasn't really doing a whole lot anyway.
Re:Vandalism raised to the level of capital crime (Score:5, Informative)
A lot of this is driven by the Koch brothers, who got their start in lobbying when they needed to cover up their theft of oil from native Americans.
https://www.politico.com/magaz... [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's called Soylent Green.
Re: (Score:2)
This was pretty expected. There was a giant "backup and get the information into non-government hands" movement before Trump took office.
You're wrong about his endgame though. He expects the cost for climate change not to hit til he's dead anyway, so why make his last few decades less comfortable? It's not like he cares about his kids or anything.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Grow the fuck up. Holy shit dude. There is NOTHING going on that is anywhere near comparable to the fucking nazis.
Let's make it clear here:
Using the term Nazi is effective because they intentionally murdered very large numbers of people in a passionless and industrial manner.
Trump, his administration, the Democrats, NOBODY is fucking murdering millions of innocent people. There is nothing nazilike going on at all. Your insistence on bringing that element in shows that your thinking is twisted beyond help.
Su
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Funny you should ask. Go take a look at Betsy DeVos and her apparent agenda. It more or less comes down to 'give money so rich white kids can go to fancy charter schools, and leave the poor black kids to go to underfunded underperforming public schools that don't give a shit about their actual education'.
'Nazi churches'? Oh you mean the ones that Trumps' staunch support base go to? The Bible Belt types? Hear them banjos playin', son?
I don't give a fly
Re: (Score:2)
"Vote Democrat in 2020, folks. We have to get the criminals out of our government before it's too late."
I would recommend: Vote only for candidates who don't take corporate/special interest, etc. money.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Frothing, feral, extremist commentators like this make it likely that Trump will win in 2020, as much as we may all regret it.
Your cartoonishly simple view of the world is, I'm sure, comfortingly validating to you and your fellow travelers, like Evangelical Christians affirmatively shouting "PRAISE JESUS" to each other at a revival tent meeting.
What it disregards is that there are a lot of reasonably intelligent people who disagree with you, both politically and in regard to climate change.* Demonizing the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Abend (Score:3, Funny)
When I read the comments in any Slashdot article about climate change, or any science that's no approved by the Republican party, I can understand why so many smartphone apps are total shit. I think I've figured out who's writing the code.
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand why so many smartphone apps are total shit.
Which ones are good?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, none of them are what I'd call "good", but there are a few that aren't total shit.
Idiots (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
it's like stealing free energy from the wind or the Sun!
It's not free.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing is "free".
In this case, the consumable is the hydrogen in the sun, the byproduct is helium, the net energy capacity of the sun decreases from the fusion reaction, there is a great deal of dispersion before that energy reaches the earth, and-- once here, energy absorbed in solar panels is theoretically energy that is not used by the biosphere (but more than likely, this is just a difference in albedo), The net consequence is that thermal energy is still the byproduct of that energy absorption (just a
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to make silly claims about wind patterns being changed from windfarms
Is that true? Seems unlikely to be a major change.
Re: (Score:2)
I DID say it was a silly change.
And yes, I have indeed seen that floated as a point of opposition to windfarm installation.
This is because they really DO cause local alterations in weather, by causing increased surface turbulence.
https://www.businessinsider.co... [businessinsider.com]
But again- so does a forest. AND-- removing said forest, will remove that turbulence, and change the weather.
BUT-- you dont see lots of people complaining about how cutting down all the trees for mad mad profits will alter local climate. Nope. Very
Re: (Score:2)
BUT-- you dont see lots of people complaining about how cutting down all the trees for mad mad profits will alter local climate.
You do. Tree-huggers got their name for a reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's what I don't get about renewable energy... TPTB are running the show, no matter where the power comes from. Why not just use cronyism to make sure that big oil winds up owning all the wind and solar, instead of suppressing it for so long that the planet may become unlivable for most known life (by mass)? It's almost enough to make me believe in lizard people.
Re: (Score:2)
Worth mentioning wind and solar (mostly) don't compete against big oil, they compete against big coal.
their corporate fascist overlords (Score:2, Insightful)
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise"
Global Climate Strike, Sep. 20-27 (Score:3)
WE GOT BACKUPS, MOTHERFUCKER! (Score:3, Informative)
Suck on this, Twitler!
https://www.wired.com/2017/01/... [wired.com]
Re:Holy hotbox Batman! (Score:5, Funny)
A government entity endorsing any hypothesis is reckless and likely based on partisan ideals
How about the null hypothesis ? Is that also reckless to endorse ?
Re:Holy hotbox Batman! (Score:4, Interesting)
How about the null hypothesis ? Is that also reckless to endorse ?
Given that the Null Hypothesis in this case is something like: humankind's emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants has no effect on the climate ... yeah, I'd say it's fairly reckless to endorse that. ;-)
(Obviously it's not reckless to endorse the use of a null hypothesis. <- No joke!)
Re: (Score:2)
A corporate endorsement of a hypothesis is likely just as reckless.
Re:Holy hotbox Batman! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Holy hotbox Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
So because it's not man made, we should do nothing? Who cares about the cause when we do know how to slow or reverse the process?
I honestly think there's a lot of millenial thinking here - that is the theological view that the world will end soon and after the return of Jesus and after the tribulation there will be a millenia long period of peace. In other words, there are people in power and people who influence those in power that none of this matters because any day now Jesus is coming back and all these environmental problems will be moot. Why preserve and conserve for the future when the end is near? These people know how the world will end and the science is predicting troubles that are not predicted in the scriptures, therefore the science must be wrong.
The scraping away of science from the government websites is absolutely, 100%, influenced by misguided partisan politics. There is zero science that says "don't worry about it". The politics of the matter *started* with the climate change deniers.
Re:Holy hotbox Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Climate change is undisputed. The CAUSE has not been scientifically proven in any way shape or form.
It's as well-proven as the fact that smoking causes lung cancer. In both cases, moneyed interests want to continue making money selling harmful products, and therefore will do everything they can to delay the inevitable by claiming THERE'S NO PROOF when there indisputably is proof.
Re:Holy hotbox Batman! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes it has. If CO2 is not the cause you have a huge amount of work ahead of you.
1) What is causing CO2 to not behave in line with accepted physics.
2) Why doesn't that mechanism stop CO2 from behaving this way when observed in the lab. Why does CO2 obey the laws of physics in the lab, but not in the atmosphere.
3) What is causing the atmosphere to behave as if CO2 does obey the laws of physics.
In other words, what two mechanisms are causing atmospheres to behave according to physics, except that they aren't and instead something else is behaving like physics.
This seems a pretty huge chain of assumptions to make! We've known CO2s infrared banding properties since the late 1800s when scientists first started warning about the Greenhouse effect. You want to claim that CO2s spectroscopic properties only work in everywhere except the atmosphere and instead something else is behaving exactly the same.
Which , of course raises further questions. Why is this mysterious phenomenon increasing in strength as CO2 increases? Is the "mysterious force that makes physics look real whilst also stopping physics being real" coupled to CO2 output? And if so, wouldn't this STILL suggest that capping CO2 is a good idea so as to limit the damage caused by the mysterious force.
It seems to me theres a Nobel prize in solving any part of this. Granted it would set physics, chemistry, astronomy, and many other fields back a century and a half due to having to throw out fundamental laws of physics at the root of it all, but what a discovery that would be.
Or you could apply occams razor and say that yes, physics still works, CO2 absorbs Infra red radiation at around the weakly at the 15Âm band and strongly at the 4.25Âm(ish) band, and that 150 years of scientists warning about the greenhouse effect isn't some spooky left wing conspiracy, possibly perpetrated by reptilians or freemasons
Re:Holy hotbox Batman! (Score:4)
And evolution is "just a theory", right?
There is lots of evidence to support the theory that climate change is caused by human activity.
Re: Holy hotbox Batman! (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you been to Europe? Itâ(TM)s actually pretty nice.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no law against cartoons in EU. There are individuals that feel threatened by US activity in Middle East and retaliate as far as they can reach. Which is at about in Europe. They feel their religion is threatened - you know that kind of mental disorder that is prevalent in US. So don't blame Europe for that.
If that is the bar, then no country is nice if you decide to take dump on neighbor's lawn. We collectively decided tha
Re: (Score:2)
WOW! I go to bed with a +5 insightful and wake up to Normal Troll.
It only takes 2 like minded idiots to propel you to +5. Fortunately there are enough sensible moderators to correct the mistake that a few idiots have been granted mod points.
Re:When government controls science..... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is about time we stopped wasting money on proving "climate change". Put the money toward solving problems we can tackle
If quitting the use of fossil fuels is not a problem we can tackle, what are we going to do when they run out ?
Let's get something done, instead of studying how much we fuck up the environment. Let's start cleaning up instead
The money spent on researching climate change is absolutely tiny compared to the money needed to do any kind of cleaning up. And not only is it tiny, it's also money well spent if you use the output to adjust policy before you get hit with the consequences.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When government controls science..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:When government controls science..... (Score:4)
It might have been a fringe idea, but it was definitely around in the 70's and 80's. There are those of us who, encouraged to read pop-sci as school kids, remember it well.
Unlike anthropogenic climate change, however, the hypothesis was fairly swiftly debunked. Science is good like that...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we're being pedantic I'd point out two things:
Firstly, I'd have taken it as read that I was talking about 'anthropogenic' global cooling, rather than 'natural' global cooling. Given that I'd still maintain it was debunked.
Secondly the next ice age, based on Milankovitch cycles (distance to Sun, precession of Earth's orbit, & tilt of Earth's axis), isn't due for around 50,000 years - although there is still a fairly significant amount of debate about the relative importance of the various factors invo
Re:When government controls science..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Back in the 50s, the scientific community was concerned about global cooling, but not nearly as concerned as they are today about AGW.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't believe everything you hear on Rush Limbaugh / Alex Jones / Bill O'Reilly podcasts. This was never a thing
I don't listen to them, I read (past tense) the articles/books myself. Furthermore there was at least one study on the topic published a few years back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure an oil pipeline does go through my back yard. There's certainly a lot of coal and oil being moved by rail through here too. I don't know about any fracking though. There's certainly a natural gas line to my house.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:We can be "green" and have energy independence (Score:4, Interesting)
Obama wanted "green energy" above all else. Trump wants energy independence, and cares little about lowering CO2 emissions even though the USA has done quite a bit to reduce CO2 output. I believe we've simply got lucky so far on that.
Well, you'll be pleased to note that under Trump CO2 levels have begun to climb again. Here's and article on the subject in the (not so) failing New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/0... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The US has a large and growing backlog of spent nuclear fuel, sitting in leaky containers with now way to get rid of it. Adding to that isn't good.
Re: (Score:2)
A surprisingly large number of people become so invested in proclaiming their outrage over whatever their pet issue is that the last thing the want is for the problem to be solved.
Re: (Score:2)
It boggles my mind why the two sides on this can't meet in the middle on nuclear power.
"Why can't both sides just agree to use the most expensive power generation on the planet? I mean it fucks over ratepayers and the biggest businesses and still can't make a profit with massive subsidies, so clearly there'd be no reason to fight against it!"
Oh, and there are engineers that claim they can destroy much of this nuclear waste, and use old nuclear warhead cores as fuel, with a new kind of nuclear reactor. Why would this not gain interest from the people that want less waste and no more nuclear weapons?
Because we've watched every generation of exciting "new kind of nuclear reactor" fail to deliver on its promised benefits.
Did they think that no one was going to move that oil if there wasn't a pipeline?
No pipeline makes the oil more expensive. So yes, less oil will be moved without a pipeline.
Also, you nuclear fans keep managing to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Science!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is not aboit "beliefs", mainstream or other. Science is about making predictions from a formal, mathematical model of reality and fixing the model if the predictions fail.
So far the models of the climate science, a very complex interdisciplinary research, have been spectacularly successful.
Moreover, their issues have been addressed - not by you, the "skeptics", but by the smart, educated people who made them - exactly in the manner you'd expect from a science.
Your smearing has no legs to atand on, n
Re: Science!? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fake news pseudo-editors conflate "science" with confirmation bias. Real science involves questioning the mainstream beliefs nonstop.
Yep.
Those flat earthers are doing real science.
Re: Science!? (Score:4, Insightful)
Those flat earthers are doing real science.
Sometimes they do. Using gyroscopes and lasers, they've proven that the Earth is in fact round, and are left with a sad and puzzling conclusion that there must be something wrong with their instruments.
Re: Science!? (Score:2)
Imagine if they directed their energy on climate science....
Better to keep real scientists chasing their tails than upset any more official narratives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Trump will go down in history as a murderer like Stalin, an evil man. All empires fall and his will be no different.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Science!? (Score:4, Informative)
Trump will go down in history as a murderer like Stalin, an evil man.
So who did he have ordered killed?
He perpetuates the war and famine in Yemen by supporting the Saudis at every turn. That's about 100.000 dead right there, most of them civilians and many of them famine deaths that could have been avoided if Trump simply twisted the Saudi government's arm to allow food and medical shipments into the area. When you are the most powerful man on earth you can twist a lot of arms to do at least some good, in fact you have a moral duty to do that, but Trump is too busy holding rallies and golfing.
Re: Science!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of what President Trump did or does, your kind will always be angry at him.
If he doesn't intervene in a foreign conflict, you claim he's perpetuating a humanitarian disaster. If he does intervene, you call it "American imperialism".
Your kind don't give a damn about Yemen. Your kind just seek any reason possible for you to express your irrational burning hatred of President Trump.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well given that the Saudis are fighing a group which uses child soldiers, is seeding the country with landmines, has regularly raided aid distribution areas to feed their soldiers and raise money for weapons, and whose official slogan is "God is great, death to the US, death to Israel, curse the Jews, and victory for Islam", I think we can give the Saudis a wee bit of leeway here.
That aside, you're moving the goalposts. You've turned "who did he order killed" into "who did he not stop from killing others". That's stupid, and incredibly dishonest.
And that justifies doing nothing while tens of thousands of people starve to death? ... and I'm not moving any goalposts, you are. The original question was how many deaths has Trump caused so far, I pointed out that tens of thousands of civilians have died in Yemen when Trump could have easily done something about it since he is after all, and as he likes to frequently point out, the most powerful man on earth. Then you moved the goalpost and tried to paint a big yellow smiley on the Saudis starving all th
Re: Science!? (Score:3, Insightful)
And that justifies doing nothing while tens of thousands of people starve to death?
If sending billions of dollars in aid is your idea of "doing nothing" then it's pretty clear that you can't be reasoned with.
and I'm not moving any goalposts, you are. The original question was how many deaths has Trump caused so far
No, the original question was (copy-pasting word for word here) "So who did he have ordered killed?".
You've now managed to tell two lies in the first two sentences. Impressive.
Even if the original question had been "how many deaths has Trump caused", your response would not have been an answer to that question either. You've claimed that he let them die when he could (in your estima
Re: (Score:2)
And that justifies doing nothing while tens of thousands of people starve to death?
If sending billions of dollars in aid is your idea of "doing nothing" then it's pretty clear that you can't be reasoned with.
and I'm not moving any goalposts, you are. The original question was how many deaths has Trump caused so far
No, the original question was (copy-pasting word for word here) "So who did he have ordered killed?".
You've now managed to tell two lies in the first two sentences. Impressive.
Even if the original question had been "how many deaths has Trump caused", your response would not have been an answer to that question either. You've claimed that he let them die when he could (in your estimation) have stopped their deaths. Even if your analysis of the situation were accurate, that is not the same thing as actually causing their deaths, let alone actively ordering them to be killed.
You deliberately asked a very narrow scoped question in an attempt to absolve Trump from any wrong doing. I don't see any difference between ordering the killing of those hundred thousand people and ordering the sale of the weapons they were killed with any more than I see the difference between Trump ordering somebody to be shot himself or Trump selling a gun to somebody else knowing they are going to commit murder with it. Trump is partially culpable for the deaths of tens of thousands of people because h
Re: Science!? (Score:5, Informative)
You deliberately asked a very narrow scoped question in an attempt to absolve Trump from any wrong doing.
I didn't ask the question you blind bastard. I also didn't force you to lie about which question had been asked.
I don't see any difference between ordering the killing of those hundred thousand people and ordering the sale of the weapons they were killed with
Then you're a fool, and I would hope you never serve on a jury. It's scary enough that you get to vote. I take it you've never read a single philosophy book.
Both parties could have forced their proxies in Yemen to the table
You have zero evidence for this.
You're also ignoring the fact that the conflict in Yemen involves far more than "proxies" of either state; like most middle east conflicts these days it's a hodgepodge of various militant and terrorist groups all fighting amongst eachother.
You're also ignoring the fact that Yemen has been undergoing periodic wars and revolutions since the 1980s at the very least.
but they chose to perpetuate that asinine war and sat on their hands with their tombs up their ass while people starved to death.
You keep lying about this despite me repeatedly pointing out that billions in aid have been sent.
I cannot be take seriously because I care that the people who perpetrated 911
That's pretty racist of you. Do you refer to Angela Merkel and her government as "the people who gassed the Jews"? Perhaps you speak of the Australian government as "the people who perpetrated the Christchurch Massacre"?
50.000 of the people starved to death or otherwise murdered by the Saudis in Yemen were children.
Yemen has been a shitshow for decades. Back in 2011 roughly 46,000 children under 5 were dying every year. You just didn't give a shit back then because it didn't give you an opportunity to try and score political points. The figures being bandied about today are almost certainly gross overestimates which ignore the background rate and make worst-case predictions in order to garner international sympathy. But you don't care about that either, right? Why bring context into a good moral panic.
You may think Trump is blameless because he's some biblically prophesied wunderkind or whatever other crap you use to justify your tripe but I don't extend him that courtesy, to me he's just another human scumbag.
I'm sure you believe this crap just like you believe all the other nonsense you've spouted, but to everyone else it just demonstrated that you are completely incapable of having a rational discussion.
You've already admitted that you have no interest in understanding the subject at hand, and you have no interest in considering why others may disagree with your naive assessment. Rather than trying to have a productive contestation in which you try to find common ground, convince others, or maybe even (Allah forbid) learn something new, you instead choose to caricature and demonize anyone who disagrees with you so that you can dismiss them without having to think too hard.
You epitomise everything that's wrong with the current state of western politics.
Re: (Score:2)
So since you use oil does that mean you're supporting the Saudis at every turn and are just as guilty of murder as Trump? Just trying to see if you're maintaining a consistent standard.
And if you say you don't use oil, you'd better not have a ICE car, you'd better use no plastic, your food had better not be grown using industrial fertilizer, and all of your purchases had better be made locally and delivered by people on bike.
Who the hell said word one about oil? I'm talking about Billions in arms sales to Saudi Arabia and providing them with the political cover they are using to commit mass murder in Yemen. Just trying to see if you're maintaining a consistently configure selective memory filter.
Re: Buzzwords (Score:2)
The Alaksan oil fields are still breaking new records.
Re: (Score:2)
Death threats are allowed on Slashdot ?
Re: (Score:3)
Death threats are allowed on Slashdot ?
I'm surprised there isn't a mod for it. :-)
Re: Nobody needs to pay any attention to you. (Score:4)
Aww, look at you... resorting to spewing that liberal "tolerance" y'all lefties talk so much about.
Yeah because AC trolls are representative of liberals. Try not being a blindly partisan fuckwit.
Re:Honesty in reporting (Score:4, Informative)
The "guesses" have historically been generally good. In fact, the real scandal in climate science is that the projections have consistently been too cautious and conservative. [sciencealert.com]
The temperatures and ocean pH don't lie, and you can't run away from the effects of climate change.
Re: (Score:3)
You have two huge issues. One is that the models have proven accurate since the 1960's, to a reasonable degree of accuracy. That is, if you had to bet on the models being right or wrong, you would have done better betting ont eh models being right.
The second is that there's no "economy ruining." Green energy startups, from a business side, produced better and more stable returns than the average industry. It's historically been less expensive to move away from fossil fuels than predicted and, after amor
Re: (Score:2)
based on guesses that have historically been wrong.
They've been "wrong" only in the sense that they did not predict the exact value. They still predicted the overall trend accurately.
In other words, you are declaring them "wrong" because they predicted 0.14389 and the actual value was 0.14289, and then declaring that the same as the actual value being negative.
Re: (Score:3)
This was done with the Department of Justice/Bureau of Justice Statistics websites. Back in 2012, recidivism data, and death penalty data was scrubbed/buried
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?... [bjs.gov]
You were saying?
I saw it happen.
Sure you did. You spend every day watching the Bureau of Justice Statistics web sites, but somehow only managing to do so through links you've saved instead of navigating the web site...so that a site redesign that breaks your links can be blamed on a conspiracy despite the same data still being available.
Alternatively, you read someone make this claim instead of seeing it happen yourself, and just accepted the claim without checking your sources because it