@black3stpanth3r: I'm not saying that ALL liberal women are ugly. Like my granddad use to say you can occasionally find a truffle in a field of cow patties.
I work in downtown DC, I see protests just about every day of the week. If you expect me to believe that the women at the Code Pink rally will be prettier than the School Choice rally, then you must think I'm blind.
A significant portion of women at the NOW protest will look like Bernie Sanders in drag. And more than a few women at the LGBTQIA rally will look like Yukon Cornelius. Sure you can find some gorgeous looking women there, but they most likely were born biologically male.
@willpayton: The 2017 budget passed May 4th in congress and Trump signed that budget. I'm sure that it has some of Obama's finger prints on it but it is hard to say the final version was Obama's budget.
Anyway, the economy is not driven by the budget but by policies. Trump has eliminated many policies that inhibited growth. Trump does deserve credit for those.
because everything he does seems to be anti science and anti environment. From practically eliminating the EPA to dismissing climate change as a "chinese hoax" he simply dismisses what the experts are saying in favor of his wild conspiracy theories.
The US withdrew from the Paris Climate accords but it has not changed its 30 year plan. That unfortunately is still in place. The current US plan will change the temperate by .002 celcius and cost trillions of dollars. The independent CBO says it will cost over 100,000 jobs primarily in the rust belt states - Ohio, Michigan, Western Pennsylvania, etc.
The change in temperature is so small that we will not be able to confirm if the plan even worked.
Many conservatives do not doubt that the temperature has increased but are leary of spending so much money for so little change. But you lefties are the real anti-science ones.
65 % of scientists believe that nuclear must be a key part of a safe and sustainable energy plan. Around 60+% of conservatives agree. It is the lefties that disagree with the scientists on nuclear. Currently only nuclear can scale large enough and be utilized by any country in the world. It is safer than even solar with the fewest deaths of any major energy source. Yet, the anti-science left oppose the only currently proven alternative to fossil fuels.
Mock the the right as anti-science for not wanting to waist trillions of dollars if you want. But the left's anti-science attitude is what is keeping us from major fossil fuel reduction in the US.
Allow me to correct you sport.
let me explain to you why the scientific community dislikes and distrusts our current president, and why they see him as not only anti science, but anti environment.
First lets start with his recent anti science/anti environment choices.
-President Trump selected Scott Pruit to lead the EPA. An attorney who previously worked very closely with the fossil fuel industry. Obviously, this is a conflict of interest and showcases Trumps desire to ignore scientists and their warnings about climate change and the damage industry can have on the environment by selecting someone who is so closely linked to the fossil fuel industry
-trump dismisses half the scientists on the EPA's advisory board and cuts 48% of the EPA's funding. Further Trump reduces the EPA's power to regulate industry. Effectively nullifying the EPA.
-Trump plans to cut 20% of NOAA's budget. The nations leaders in climate study, and weather forecast.
-Most appalling is the Trump administrations removal of the clean water act that protected America's water ways from industry waste and kept our rivers at a certain level of cleanliness.
- Trump decides to pull out of the Paris climate accord. Becoming 1 of 3 countries in the entire world not to participate alongside Nicaragua and Syria. Embarrassing our country in front of the entire world, showing that while the rest of the world is committed to fighting climate change, America stands beside Syria and Nicaragua in it's refusal to help.
- Trump has asked both NASA and NOAA to remove all talks of climate change from their websites and public speeches despite the protesting of the engineers and scientists who work for the agencies.
- Trump removed our methane regulations, further ignoring scientists in the support of business.
- Trump selects Sam Clovis a former campaign adviser and conservative radio talk show host, to serve as USDA’s top scientist. Once again, choosing someone who is apart of trumps conspiracy theories over AN ACTUAL SCIENTISTS to take the top scientist position.
- Trump selected Rick Perry, a non scientists, a climate change skeptic, as the U.S secretary of energy. This position has always been held by a knowledgeable scientist in the field, once again trumps selects someone who will support business over scientific experts in the matter.
- Trump selects Rex Tillerson, a former Exxon mobile exec as secretary of state. Continuing his trend of ignoring scientists in favor of big business fossil fuel experts.
- and these are just examples. It goes on and on, day after day. He constantly ignores scientists in favor of big business with no regard for the environment. Is it any wonder so many scientists oppose Trump and his administration.
And that's not even discussing the things Trump has personally said himself. Who could forget this gem
Trump is such a fool he ignores scientists for his personal brand of conspiracy theories. choosing to believe climate change is a chinese hoax over what scientists and their overwhelming amount of evidence is telling him. That climate change isn't just occurring, it's man made.
He even buys into the whole vaccination creates autism anti science nonsense.
Just look at these tweets. This man has no understanding of science and is to easily swayed by wild conspiracy theories.
Lets not forget about Tangier island. As sea levels rise this island is slowly sinking into the sea. The islands plight appears to have prompted President Donald Trump to call the town's mayor to assure him that his town will not succumb to rising seas by the middle of this century, despite what scientists predict. Again, another example of Trump ignoring scientists in favor of conservative talk show conspiracy theories.
and again these are just examples, there are too many of these to list all here. The Trump administration has shown time and time again they choose big business over scientists. He will choose wild conspiracy theories over the experts...every time.
and the engineers and scientists who represent these experts aren't having it. If you are still confused about which side is 'anti science', then allow the scientists to tell you directly. I am an aerospace engineer who works for the national oceanic atmospheric administration (NOAA) who helped organize and participated in the march for science in D.C back on Earth day earlier this year.
make no mistake. Scientists, engineers, the experts don't support this administrations anti science policies and beliefs. It's why scientists rallied against Trump. It's why scientists constantly speak out against Trumps anti science decisions
make no mistake, this isn't a debate or a discussion. I am telling you why the trump administration is anti science, and anti environment. I am telling you why scientists and engineers are opposing Trump and why, for the first time, they are engaged in politics. It's people like trump that help empower anti science thoughts like vaccines cause autism, or that climate change isn't real. He represents the greatest danger to science in America since "intelligent design" tried to remove top biology and physics theories from our schools science class rooms. And scientists aren't standing for it.
As someone who is relatively new to NOAA (I was inspired in 2016 to leave my comfortable engineering job in the DoD to take up an engineering position within NOAA to help fight this sudden rise in anti science, I felt I needed to be on the right side of this conflict and to help fight against it.) But as someone relatively new here, the experts who have been here for decades have told me not to be so concerned. The next 3 years will suck without a doubt. but in the end, history has shown science, the truth, always wins. Just ask the church whether the Earth is the center of the universe or not? That ultimately the Trump administration is teaching this new generation to associate anti science, and anti environment with not just them, but by association the republican party. something that will sting them badly come 2020. To make a long story short, I am told that more will be gained in the long run than lost over these next 3 years due to Trumps blundering and obviously ignorant anti science policies. People are watching, Trumps mistakes will be corrected, and more good will come from it then if nothing had happened at all. This is what gives me hope.
but this is also why Trump and his administration is viewed as anti science. It's not a debate sport, I am just explaining to you the facts. If you're still confused please respond. I'd be happy to explain this further for you.
First the EPA budge has been going down since 2010 and has more to do with multi year superfund money. See bugets:
Fiscal Year
Enacted Budget
Workforce
FY 2017
$8,058,488,000
15,408
FY 2016
$8,139,887,000
14,779
FY 2015
$8,139,887,000
14,725
FY 2014
$8,200,000,000
15,408
FY 2013
$7,901,104,000
15,913
FY 2012
$8,449,385,000
17,106
FY 2011
$8,682,117,000
17,359
FY 2010
$10,297,864,000
17,278
The EPA is a federal agency; it is not congress. Obama allowed the EPA to operate outside of its authority. Hence all the supreme court rulings against the EPA over the last several years. Congress, not the EPA, should make far reaching environmental laws. Trump should be commended for bringing a rogue organization in constitutional compliance.
You are right, Trump may deny Global Warming. But he has not changed the US plan to address global warming. His withdrawl from the non binding Paris Climate Accords meant nothing, as did the Climate Accords themselves. China and India are doing nothing differently than they were going to do before them. The vast majority of European countries have missed their targets and have done doing to change that. It was a feel good moment, not good policy.
Do you seriously think the US should spend trillions of dollars and cost 100,000 people their jobs for a change in temperature of .002 degrees Celsius? Please answer question. That is at the heart of the discussion.
You failed to address the left's anti-science position on nuclear energy. Currently solar and wind can not upscale like nuclear and require massive amounts of government give aways to keep from going bankrupt. Yet, you flat-Earthers continue to fight against the one proven technology that could create a substantial dent in global warming.
The left also opposes natural gas emits far less harmful emissions than coal. Yet, you oppose it. You would rather charge your electric cars with coal powered energy plants. Such hypocrisy.
Yes, there are some on the right that deny global warming, but on far more issues, it is the left that are the real anti-science people. I've mentioned nuclear power. I could also mention genetically modified crops which could save millions of lives if not for the anti-science left. The left refuse to acknowledge scientific differences in how the brain works in males and females. The left, more than the right, opposes vaccinations. The left refuses to acknowledge biological differences in the races such as African Americans are more likely to have sickle cell anemia and Europeans are more likely to have cystic fibrosis. Yet, the left attack anyone who advocates taking biological differences into medical treatment.
I'll accept that many on the right deny the science of global change, but will the left own its multitude of anti-science beliefs.
First the EPA budge has been going down since 2010 and has more to do with multi year superfund money. See bugets:
Fiscal Year
Enacted Budget
Workforce
FY 2017
$8,058,488,000
15,408
FY 2016
$8,139,887,000
14,779
FY 2015
$8,139,887,000
14,725
FY 2014
$8,200,000,000
15,408
FY 2013
$7,901,104,000
15,913
FY 2012
$8,449,385,000
17,106
FY 2011
$8,682,117,000
17,359
FY 2010
$10,297,864,000
17,278
The EPA is a federal agency; it is not congress. Obama allowed the EPA to operate outside of its authority. Hence all the supreme court rulings against the EPA over the last several years. Congress, not the EPA, should make far reaching environmental laws. Trump should be commended for bringing a rogue organization in constitutional compliance.
And trumps 2018 budget for the EPA is 5.7 billion. The lowest budget it's seen in it's entire 40 + year history. You're allowing your political leanings to over come the logic and science of the situation.
"rogue organization"- your political bias is showing. So what, your glad Trump removed the clean water act? You support Trump when he chooses big business over science and our health? There is no justification for this other than Trumps rampant anti science stances.
You then go on to rant about things I never once mentioned. Trying to change the subject? Or have you just lost it? You say what I oppose even though I never said a thing about it. This is why I enjoy posts like this. Anyone reading can see you haven't a clue what you are talking about, talking about things unrelated to what's being discussed. While I point to science and the facts, you poorly try to change the subject and tell people what I oppose and don't. People take note of these kinds of things, they see right now, 'the right' is pulling nonsense out of their ass. Please continue
You're an idiot. I just explained to you I am an aerospace engineer who works for NOAA. I fly NOAA's GOES satellites for a living studing the Earth's climate and weather. I literally look at the round Earth every day. Why in gods name would you call me a flat Earther. But continue talking, you're making my point. See last response
and the engineers and scientists who represent these experts aren't having it. If you are still confused about which side is 'anti science', then allow the scientists to tell you directly. I am an aerospace engineer who works for the national oceanic atmospheric administration (NOAA) who helped organize and participated in the march for science in D.C back on Earth day earlier this year.
make no mistake. Scientists, engineers, the experts don't support this administrations anti science policies and beliefs. It's why scientists rallied against Trump. It's why scientists constantly speak out against Trumps anti science decisions
make no mistake, this isn't a debate or a discussion. I am telling you why the trump administration is anti science, and anti environment. I am telling you why scientists and engineers are opposing Trump and why, for the first time, they are engaged in politics. It's people like trump that help empower anti science thoughts like vaccines cause autism, or that climate change isn't real. He represents the greatest danger to science in America since "intelligent design" tried to remove top biology and physics theories from our schools science class rooms. And scientists aren't standing for it.
oops? looks like scientists are saying Trump, and by association Republicans are anti science. Guess they would know huh.
you prattle on about unrelated things I never once mentioned that have no barring on the discussion at hand. About why scientists and engineers oppose Trump for his anti science and anti environmental policies. Facts that you chose not to address. As I stated earlier.
let me explain to you why the scientific community dislikes and distrusts our current president, and why they see him as not only anti science, but anti environment.
First lets start with his recent anti science/anti environment choices.
-President Trump selected Scott Pruit to lead the EPA. An attorney who previously worked very closely with the fossil fuel industry. Obviously, this is a conflict of interest and showcases Trumps desire to ignore scientists and their warnings about climate change and the damage industry can have on the environment by selecting someone who is so closely linked to the fossil fuel industry
-trump dismisses half the scientists on the EPA's advisory board and cuts 48% of the EPA's funding. Further Trump reduces the EPA's power to regulate industry. Effectively nullifying the EPA.
-Most appalling is the Trump administrations removal of the clean water act that protected America's water ways from industry waste and kept our rivers at a certain level of cleanliness.
- Trump decides to pull out of the Paris climate accord. Becoming 1 of 3 countries in the entire world not to participate alongside Nicaragua and Syria. Embarrassing our country in front of the entire world, showing that while the rest of the world is committed to fighting climate change, America stands beside Syria and Nicaragua in it's refusal to help.
- Trump has asked both NASA and NOAA to remove all talks of climate change from their websites and public speeches despite the protesting of the engineers and scientists who work for the agencies.
- Trump removed our methane regulations, further ignoring scientists in the support of business.
- Trump selects Sam Clovis a former campaign adviser and conservative radio talk show host, to serve as USDA’s top scientist. Once again, choosing someone who is apart of trumps conspiracy theories over AN ACTUAL SCIENTISTS to take the top scientist position.
- Trump selected Rick Perry, a non scientists, a climate change skeptic, as the U.S secretary of energy. This position has always been held by a knowledgeable scientist in the field, once again trumps selects someone who will support business over scientific experts in the matter.
- Trump selects Rex Tillerson, a former Exxon mobile exec as secretary of state. Continuing his trend of ignoring scientists in favor of big business fossil fuel experts.
- and these are just examples. It goes on and on, day after day. He constantly ignores scientists in favor of big business with no regard for the environment. Is it any wonder so many scientists oppose Trump and his administration.
And that's not even discussing the things Trump has personally said himself. Who could forget this gem
Trump is such a fool he ignores scientists for his personal brand of conspiracy theories. choosing to believe climate change is a chinese hoax over what scientists and their overwhelming amount of evidence is telling him. That climate change isn't just occurring, it's man made.
He even buys into the whole vaccination creates autism anti science nonsense.
Just look at these tweets. This man has no understanding of science and is to easily swayed by wild conspiracy theories.
Lets not forget about Tangier island. As sea levels rise this island is slowly sinking into the sea. The islands plight appears to have prompted President Donald Trump to call the town's mayor to assure him that his town will not succumb to rising seas by the middle of this century, despite what scientists predict. Again, another example of Trump ignoring scientists in favor of conservative talk show conspiracy theories.
you failed to address these points. I wonder why. Trump has demonstrated practically weekly why he stands for anti science and anti environment. You weren't even able to address over 75% of the reasons I pointed out. Likely because there is no defense for the anti science things Trump says and does.
but namely, as I've demonstrated, scientists and engineers, the experts, have stated Trump is anti science, constantly making choices that hurt scientific progression, scientific understanding, that oppose scientific facts all to support his wild conspiracy theories. It's hard to say the left is anti science when scientists themselves are telling you otherwise huh sport? That's always been the problem with conservatives. They'd rather listen to what they want to believe, and conservative politicians, than the experts themselves.
@black3stpanth3r: I'm not saying that ALL liberal women are ugly. Like my granddad use to say you can occasionally find a truffle in a field of cow patties.
I work in downtown DC, I see protests just about every day of the week. If you expect me to believe that the women at the Code Pink rally will be prettier than the School Choice rally, then you must think I'm blind.
A significant portion of women at the NOW protest will look like Bernie Sanders in drag. And more than a few women at the LGBTQIA rally will look like Yukon Cornelius. Sure you can find some gorgeous looking women there, but they most likely were born biologically male.
I can't tell if you are trolling, or just trying to be funny. Are you trying to make a pass at me? I'm already taken, I already have a beautiful wife, I could care less about how anyone else looks regardless of their politics, you sound just as vein as the President. Why am I not surprised, you are a typical Trumpet, everyday you people show just how ignorant an ill informed you are, oh well, you were fooled by the dunce in chief, and you fell for his pandering, "a fool is easily parted with his free will".
@willpayton: The 2017 budget passed May 4th in congress and Trump signed that budget. I'm sure that it has some of Obama's finger prints on it but it is hard to say the final version was Obama's budget.
Wrong. The U.S. 2017 budget was submitted to Congress by Obama in February of 2016.
All Trump signed was a continuing resolution to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. So basically what he signed just continues the spending as it was before he got into office.
Anyway, the economy is not driven by the budget but by policies. Trump has eliminated many policies that inhibited growth. Trump does deserve credit for those.
The economy? I thought you were talking about the stock market? Oh ok, so the economy is not driven by the budget, so then you're ok with the federal government spending as much as possible, because massive debts are not an issue according to you.
Also according to your logic, Obama had much better policies, since the stock market went up around 200% under Obama, unemployment went from 10% to less than 5%, the U.S. auto industry was saved, and we went from losing 800,000 jobs per month when Obama took office to gaining 216,000 per month when he left office. Actually, under Obama we had 76 straight months of job gains. What has Trump done?
@willpayton: The 2017 budget passed May 4th in congress and Trump signed that budget. I'm sure that it has some of Obama's finger prints on it but it is hard to say the final version was Obama's budget.
Wrong. The U.S. 2017 budget was submitted to Congress by Obama in February of 2016.
All Trump signed was a continuing resolution to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. So basically what he signed just continues the spending as it was before he got into office.
so what you are saying is that Chuck Schummer slamming of the new budget was actually him going against his party?
@willpayton: The 2017 budget passed May 4th in congress and Trump signed that budget. I'm sure that it has some of Obama's finger prints on it but it is hard to say the final version was Obama's budget.
Wrong. The U.S. 2017 budget was submitted to Congress by Obama in February of 2016.
All Trump signed was a continuing resolution to fund the government and avoid a shutdown. So basically what he signed just continues the spending as it was before he got into office.
so what you are saying is that Chuck Schummer slamming of the new budget was actually him going against his party?
I dont know what Schumer said, but I'd imagine he was slamming the 2018 budget that was just passed by the Senate... the one where all Republicans except for Rand Paul voted for, but no Democrats did. This would be the first Trump budget, and quite different from the funding resolution that was passed earlier to keep the government running... which was passed on a bi-partisan basis... if I'm remembering correctly.
Again, while not entirely familiar with this new budget, I do remember the CBO analysis of the proposal some months ago. Increase spending on the military and lower taxes on the rich, while cutting spending on social programs, science, health, the State Department, housing, transportation, the environment, and pretty much all the things that the federal government does that help the country not turn into a total shithole.
What we should be doing is just the opposite. Reduce spending on the military, focus on diplomacy rather than bombing people (i.e. the State Department), spend more on infrastructure, research, education, and social programs, and increase taxes on the rich to help pay down the debt.
@chstar:There is a lot to comment on. First, I would agree with you that the cuts Trump wants for the EPA are too substantial. There is no real threat of any of this happening as Republicans do not support this. But I do think there should be substantial cuts. I work for the federal government, in fact I built and maintained some of the applications that track EPA funding. I know there is a lot of waste.
First, Trump is right that the Clean Water Act was an unconstitutional power grab. And the Supreme Court agreed with him. You do support the constitution don't you? Trump wants to rewrite it to more narrowly define what a water way is and limit the scope of government oversite. The current rule has been used to justify legal actions taken against homeowners for filling a puddle or altering a dry drainage ditch on their own property. Another example would be the story of Joyce Kinder who was fined $5,000 and sentenced to three years probation for unknowingly catching protected paddlefish in the Ohio River. Even sensible Democrats agree as the Hill notes on the Kinder story:
“We must ensure that regulations, especially those that impose criminal sanctions, provide fair notice to everyone and punish only the appropriate violators,” Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.)
The Hill further chronicled Democrats opposition to the regulations of the Clean Water Act:
“It has become routine practice for Congress to authorize an agency generally to promulgate regulations while providing that violating the yet-to-be-seen regulations will be a criminal offense,” he said.
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said that some federal officials had too much power to prosecute crimes.
“In the continuum of justice, which moves from congressional action to administrative rule-making, prosecutorial discretion and judicial review, obviously there’s a breakdown, at least I believe, in that prosecutorial discretion phase that requires some measure of corrective action,” he said.
Some Democrats also bemoaned that small businesses and middle-class Americans are unable to fight federal charges, while executives on Wall Street and at BP have avoided indictments for their role in the financial crisis and Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
That problem, they said, went deeper than crimes about regulations.
“People really end up pleading to crimes that they didn’t commit because they didn’t have the resources to defend themselves,” said Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.).
So sensible Democrats agree with Trump and the Supreme Court that the Clean Water Act needs to be rewritten and has gone beyond its authority. Reasonable Democrats side with everyday citizens that have been the victims of overaggressive regulations, but the left side with Big Government Bureaucracy which uses its power to take advantage of the vulnerable.
You suggest that to disagree with you means that they want unclean water. That is puerile. Trump recognizes the need for regulation, but within defined limits. Its a false characterization.
Secondly, Part of the EPA budget reduction involves the Clean Power Plan. That's the plan Obama instituted and will run at least through 2030 that I referenced earlier. That's our current global warming plan and it is our commitment that Trump withdrew from the Paris Accords. It costs 8.4 billion ( through 2030) but will cost the economy up to $2.5 trillion (granted that is the high side estimate) and an estimated 125,800 jobs primarily in Appalachia and the rust belt states. And what will we get as far as a temperature change? Well, I admit my figure of .002 degrees Celsius was wrong. I went back and read the congressional testimony of EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy. It is actually one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius. I over inflated the temperature benefit by 100%. Forgive me.
Again, do you think we should spend our efforts on a plan that will give us a .001 degree Celsius change in temperature, which we can't even verify, while costing 125,800 people their jobs and costing the economy up to 2.5 trillion dollars? I don't. I believe in global change, but I know that's not a good deal. Trump is right to reduce our monies on this current plan.
A truth that global warming acolytes don't want discussed is that currently we don't have the technology to get rid of fossil fuels or to substantially lower the temperature. Further, solar and wind, while having made great progress can not scale up to handle the hundreds of millions of people who need power in this country alone. If you take the time to look at the individual plans of the countries in the Paris Accords you notice they are all heavily back loaded and missing any substantive detail - why, because they are betting that in time the technology will be developed to address global warming. But right now they know there is no economically and scalable technology to address the problem.
To deny developing nations the power they need now (coal, wood, gas) is evil as it will keep them in poverty and result in many deaths and suffering. Nuclear is by far the most realistic current option, though it is expensive, and the left despises it. Though, scientists largely support it. This is an area of anti-science for the left.
I'm always amazed at how the left want to portray those on the right as anti-science, when the truth is that the left, as a collective group, hold many more anti-science beliefs. Yes, it is true Trump sounds like a global change denier. I don't agree with him. I don't agree with him on vaccinations. I not only disagree with him, but I feel no need to defend what I don't believe.
I also don't agree with the a lot of the left's anti-science beliefs. Like their opposition to GMOs which could help to feed millions of people. Or the left's opposition to nuclear power which could reduce CO2 emissions dramatically. Or the left's opposition to vaccines, or the left's opposition to cognitive differences between males and females, or the left's opposition to considering ethnicity to address medical issues, or the left's denial that an unborn human life is alive and more than just a blob of cells.
Now if I falsely lumped you in with the left and their anti-science beliefs, I apologize. I do get irritated with the charge from the left that the right's anti-science stance towards global warming will result in the deaths of thousands, while their anti-science beliefs keep us from making real progress on CO2 particle reduction through their opposition to nuclear energy and natural gas. Some on the right may be denying the problem, but the left is denying a viable solution. To me that is much more egregious. At least the right can plead ignorance, the left has no excuse. If the problem is as desperate as they say, then their anti-science is much more horrific.
@willpayton: If I may ask, would you support cutting U.S. military spending in half? Just curious.
That's a very interesting question. I think in general if we could eventually get there, that would be awesome. Even at 1/2 the normal military budget we'd still be spending much more than any other country. Also, the "military industrial complex" is known for overspending and inefficiency, so having more constraints and discipline in spending would be a good thing. But, it's not that kind of thing you can do overnight. Cutting military spending in half all of a sudden would be a big shock to the system, and not only would the military suffer but a lot of contractors would go under right away. I think you'd need to stagger the cuts over something like 8 years (a President's 2 terms) were you lower spending by 1/16th of the starting budget each year until you get to 1/2.
If you are still confused about which side is 'anti science', then allow the scientists to tell you directly. I am an aerospace engineer who works for the national oceanic atmospheric administration (NOAA) who helped organize and participated in the march for science in D.C back on Earth day earlier this year.
make no mistake. Scientists, engineers, the experts don't support this administrations anti science policies and beliefs. It's why scientists rallied against Trump. It's why scientists constantly speak out against Trumps anti science decisions
As someone who is relatively new to NOAA (I was inspired in 2016 to leave my comfortable engineering job in the DoD to take up an engineering position within NOAA to help fight this sudden rise in anti science, I felt I needed to be on the right side of this conflict and to help fight against it.)
Good for you man! Truly! America needs more people like you who are willing to defend and further science when it's under attack by Trump and the right. Who are willing to jump into the heart of the conflict. This is a long forum topic, but your posts really shed light on Trump's anti science stances, and clarified for me where scientists stand on these issues. I am glad there are experts like you out there who are willing to stand up to conservative amateurs like @just_sayin when they try to spread their propaganda.
I am not going to jump into this debate. But it struck me that both sides seem to be claiming "the other side is anti science." So you went straight to the heart of it and posted what scientists think on these issues. And if most scientific experts are saying it is Trump and the right who are "anti science", well as you said, they would know. @just_sayin continues to argue otherwise, but the picture became clear when you pointed out what the scientists are saying and supporting. I wish I could have been there at the 'March for science' event myself to show more unity. That scientists felt the need to march against Trump speaks true volumes.
But really, I just wanted to say way to go man! Quitting a cushy job to work for NOAA, so that you could fight to the good fight! I had to create an account just so I could say "thank you." and cheer you on. When I graduate highschool this year, I am feeling somewhat inspired to pursue science myself to help out myself. When science comes under attack, there must be those who will rise up to defend her. Trump will not succeed.
@a_fan: I call bullshit. While Trump is anti science for his agenda, the far left is as well and to say otherwise is laughable. There is so much proof Trumps wants science that supports his agendas, and there is just as much proof people like Hillary and leftist extremist want science that supports their identity politic agendas.
So the fact you fail to realize this, I call Bullshit. Both sides are bias in science lmao.
@a_fan: I call bullshit. While Trump is anti science for his agenda, the far left is as well and to say otherwise is laughable. There is so much proof Trumps wants science that supports his agendas, and there is just as much proof people like Hillary and leftist extremist want science that supports their identity politic agendas.
So the fact you fail to realize this, I call Bullshit. Both sides are bias in science lmao.
maybe you should ask the scientists themselves what they think? I don't recall any "march for science" for any other presidents. I wonder why? You guys can't seem to get around this one. Why should anyone care what amateurs like us think. In a discussion about whether Trump is anti science or not, we should probably listen to the scientists. And their message has been read loud and clear. Who do you think people are going to listen to, scientists or random forum posters?
@a_fan: I call bullshit. While Trump is anti science for his agenda, the far left is as well and to say otherwise is laughable. There is so much proof Trumps wants science that supports his agendas, and there is just as much proof people like Hillary and leftist extremist want science that supports their identity politic agendas.
So the fact you fail to realize this, I call Bullshit. Both sides are bias in science lmao.
maybe you should ask the scientists themselves what they think? I don't recall any "march for science" for any other presidents. I wonder why? You guys can't seem to get around this one. Why should anyone care what amateurs like us think. In a discussion about whether Trump is anti science or not, we should probably listen to the scientists. And their message has been read loud and clear. Who do you think people are going to listen to, scientists or random forum posters?
Thing is, there is science that side with trump and Right Wing thinking as well. Your proclaiming left wing Scientist are correct. that in itself is bias and faulty. Scientist on the far left are just as wrong as far right.
So i call bullshit on you being a real scientist unless your simply one of the left winged ones who want to demonize the right winged ones with the same stupidity they themselves show.
@a_fan: I call bullshit. While Trump is anti science for his agenda, the far left is as well and to say otherwise is laughable. There is so much proof Trumps wants science that supports his agendas, and there is just as much proof people like Hillary and leftist extremist want science that supports their identity politic agendas.
So the fact you fail to realize this, I call Bullshit. Both sides are bias in science lmao.
maybe you should ask the scientists themselves what they think? I don't recall any "march for science" for any other presidents. I wonder why? You guys can't seem to get around this one. Why should anyone care what amateurs like us think. In a discussion about whether Trump is anti science or not, we should probably listen to the scientists. And their message has been read loud and clear. Who do you think people are going to listen to, scientists or random forum posters?
Thing is, there is science that side with trump and Right Wing thinking as well. Your proclaiming left wing Scientist are correct. that in itself is bias and faulty. Scientist on the far left are just as wrong as far right.
So i call bullshit on you being a real scientist unless your simply one of the left winged ones who want to demonize the right winged ones with the same stupidity they themselves show.
Its the pot calling the kettle black lol.
Real scientist have no use for politics.
what are you talking about? I am not a scientist and never claimed to be. I literally said I was in highschool. It just became obvious to me which side science was on after reading @chstar posts. Again you can talk all day kiddo, keep telling people it's both sides etc etc. But again, why not ask the scientists themselves?
and the engineers and scientists who represent these experts aren't having it. If you are still confused about which side is 'anti science', then allow the scientists to tell you directly. I am an aerospace engineer who works for the national oceanic atmospheric administration (NOAA) who helped organize and participated in the march for science in D.C back on Earth day earlier this year.
make no mistake. Scientists, engineers, the experts don't support this administrations anti science policies and beliefs. It's why scientists rallied against Trump. It's why scientists constantly speak out against Trumps anti science decisions
make no mistake, this isn't a debate or a discussion. I am telling you why the trump administration is anti science, and anti environment. I am telling you why scientists and engineers are opposing Trump and why, for the first time, they are engaged in politics. It's people like trump that help empower anti science thoughts like vaccines cause autism, or that climate change isn't real. He represents the greatest danger to science in America since "intelligent design" tried to remove top biology and physics theories from our schools science class rooms. And scientists aren't standing for it.
oops? looks like scientists are saying Trump, and by association Republicans are anti science. Guess they would know huh.
It's exactly as I said in my first post. I can see amateurs suggesting both sides are anti science. However, the scientists themselves seem to only be pointing there finger in one direction. Riddle me this? Why only now have scientists banded together to "march for science?" They never felt the need for any other presidency? Just Donald Trumps. Let that sink in.
The action of scientists against Trump speaks more volumes than anything that will be written or responded to in this topic. You're batting out of your league
@a_fan: I call bullshit. While Trump is anti science for his agenda, the far left is as well and to say otherwise is laughable. There is so much proof Trumps wants science that supports his agendas, and there is just as much proof people like Hillary and leftist extremist want science that supports their identity politic agendas.
So the fact you fail to realize this, I call Bullshit. Both sides are bias in science lmao.
maybe you should ask the scientists themselves what they think? I don't recall any "march for science" for any other presidents. I wonder why? You guys can't seem to get around this one. Why should anyone care what amateurs like us think. In a discussion about whether Trump is anti science or not, we should probably listen to the scientists. And their message has been read loud and clear. Who do you think people are going to listen to, scientists or random forum posters?
You are right that Trump and many conservatives are anti-science in regard to climate change. But what about the left's positions on the several other areas I mentioned. I'll start with just one:
Nuclear Energy is safe and should play a major part in reducing our carbon emissions. To quote from the Huffington Post:
Some 65% of AAS scientists favor building more nuclear power plants—a clear though not overwhelming consilience. Why? Because nuclear power generates green energy and does not rely on fossil fuels. A group of scientists, journalists and policy wonks calling themselves eco-modernists, have laid out a green case for nuclear energy in numerous forums. “Nuclear fission today represents the only present-day zero-carbon technology with the demonstrated ability to meet most, if not all, of the energy demands of a modern economy,” the group declared in what has come to be known as “An Ecomodernist Manifesto“.
Yet most of the left does not support nuclear power. Approximately 54 percent conservatives support nuclear and 70 percent of liberals oppose it. The left side against scientist on the issue of nuclear energy. This is definitely a sign of ANTI-SCIENCE.
What's extremely sad is that nuclear and natural gas, something else the anti-science left oppose, could be very helpful in helping reduce CO2 emissions, something the left pretends they care about.
I could go through a long list of anti-science on the left from GMOs, homeopathy, vacinations, denying differences in how men and women's brains work, fighting against recognizing ethnic differences in medicine such as Europeans are more likely to have cystic fibrosis, to even a significant number denying that an unborn child is even alive and just an undefined mass of cells.
you both keep desperately avoiding the point. Allow me to cut to the heart of it.
Why do you think scientists felt strongly enough to ban together and march against trump in the "march for science." But never have against any other president? No one cares what you or I think. Who do you think people are going to listen to when it comes to the subject of 'anti science'? You? Or the actual scientists who are telling people it's Trump, and the right, who are "raging a war against science." It's the scientists words.
Or are you going to continue on about how you know what's 'anti science' better than the actual scientists lol.
In any case, the points been made enough times. People get it by now. Feel free to keep talking about things (like nuclear energy that you love so much) that no one was talking about in a desperate bid to save face and make it sound like you have some sort of argument. The question was, "is Trump 'anti science'". And it's been clearly demonstrated by scientists that he is. They banned together to march against him, they say he is anti science. No one is going to care if some internet poster disagrees.
My purpose today was to congratulate Chstar for doing the right thing in taking up a job at NOAA to help oppose Trump and protect science. I did that. So I'll just say good luck to you both. If the scientists themselves won't change your mind, then nothing will. But I am satisfied anyone reading will notice that, and they will listen to the scientists over you on this subject.
@just_sayin: I just notice Bill Nye is leading that march.
Mother trucker is not even a real scientist lol. His recent Netflix show is cringe worthy leftist agendas.
Sad.
You don't need to hold a PhD to be a scientist. I was a scientist during my undergraduate career.
Regardless, he is a science communicator and is using his platform for scientific and humanitarian efforts.
That said, not all scientists agree on the issue of nuclear power. It is a fairly even split on the issue. Some come from the camp that it is the best we currently have, others believe that we should invest in cleaner alternatives, as they are becoming more developed and cheaper than they used to be.
You are right that Trump and many conservatives are anti-science in regard to climate change. But what about the left's positions on the several other areas I mentioned. I'll start with just one:
Nuclear Energy is safe and should play a major part in reducing our carbon emissions. To quote from the Huffington Post:
Some 65% of AAS scientists favor building more nuclear power plants—a clear though not overwhelming consilience. Why? Because nuclear power generates green energy and does not rely on fossil fuels. A group of scientists, journalists and policy wonks calling themselves eco-modernists, have laid out a green case for nuclear energy in numerous forums. “Nuclear fission today represents the only present-day zero-carbon technology with the demonstrated ability to meet most, if not all, of the energy demands of a modern economy,” the group declared in what has come to be known as “An Ecomodernist Manifesto“.
Yet most of the left does not support nuclear power. Approximately 54 percent conservatives support nuclear and 70 percent of liberals oppose it. The left side against scientist on the issue of nuclear energy. This is definitely a sign of ANTI-SCIENCE.
What's extremely sad is that nuclear and natural gas, something else the anti-science left oppose, could be very helpful in helping reduce CO2 emissions, something the left pretends they care about.
Reason why that is however is because quite a lot of people are not overly enthusiastic about a having a nuclear powerplant nearby, because of the consequences of it one day going terribly wrong. People were worried in the past because they saw what Chernobyl did, they were reminded about that with Fukushima. Thing is that if a coal plant or something more conventional goes horribly wrong, you at most loose that particular plant (and likely some of the people in it), if it happens at a nuclear plant though, you loose it and huge area around it.
Also, I have to say that to call nuclear energy clean, is just dead wrong. Yes, the process of making energy might be clean and efficient, but then you have the waste products that comes out of it. The stuff is highly toxic, can't be reused in any way, and will be around for many thousands of years and right now it's just piling up.
Regardless, he is a science communicator and is using his platform for scientific and humanitarian efforts.
He was a scientist then. His recent Netflix shows was bias as all get out, and more into politics of science than actual science. It was cringy as shit.
@just_sayin: I just notice Bill Nye is leading that march.
Mother trucker is not even a real scientist lol. His recent Netflix show is cringe worthy leftist agendas.
Sad.
You don't need to hold a PhD to be a scientist. I was a scientist during my undergraduate career.
Regardless, he is a science communicator and is using his platform for scientific and humanitarian efforts.
That said, not all scientists agree on the issue of nuclear power. It is a fairly even split on the issue. Some come from the camp that it is the best we currently have, others believe that we should invest in cleaner alternatives, as they are becoming more developed and cheaper than they used to be.
There will always be some myrmidons for the left's anti-science agenda. No amount of science or statistics will persuade them. But for those reading who do have a commitment to truth - No, scientists are not evenly split on this issue. 65% of AAS scientists support nuclear energy as a clean energy alternative. That's 2 out of 3. Its only that low due to a massive anti-nuclear propaganda. When you actually focus on scientists whose field of study is nuclear the consensus is overwhelming in favor of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy gives off 0% CO2 emissions. There isn't a "cleaner" alternative.
And regarding safety, this may surprise the anti-science left and send them back under their flat-Earther rocks, but of the major energy technologies, Nuclear is the safest - and yes, that includes incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. And it isn't even close. According to Forbes:
Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average 100,000 (41% global electricity)
Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity)
Oil 36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind 150 (2% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (16% global electricity)
Hydro – U.S. 5 (6% U.S. electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
@just_sayin: I just notice Bill Nye is leading that march.
Mother trucker is not even a real scientist lol. His recent Netflix show is cringe worthy leftist agendas.
Sad.
You don't need to hold a PhD to be a scientist. I was a scientist during my undergraduate career.
Regardless, he is a science communicator and is using his platform for scientific and humanitarian efforts.
That said, not all scientists agree on the issue of nuclear power. It is a fairly even split on the issue. Some come from the camp that it is the best we currently have, others believe that we should invest in cleaner alternatives, as they are becoming more developed and cheaper than they used to be.
There will always be some myrmidons for the left's anti-science agenda. No amount of science or statistics will persuade them. But for those reading who do have a commitment to truth - No, scientists are not evenly split on this issue. 65% of AAS scientists support nuclear energy as a clean energy alternative. That's 2 out of 3. Its only that low due to a massive anti-nuclear propaganda. When you actually focus on scientists whose field of study is nuclear the consensus is overwhelming in favor of nuclear energy.
1) Nuclear energy gives off 0% CO2 emissions. There isn't a "cleaner" alternative.
2) And regarding safety, this may surprise the anti-science left and send them back under their flat-Earther rocks, but of the major energy technologies, Nuclear is the safest - and yes, that includes incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. And it isn't even close. According to Forbes:
Energy Source Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)
Coal – global average 100,000 (41% global electricity)
Coal – China 170,000 (75% China’s electricity)
Coal – U.S. 10,000 (32% U.S. electricity)
Oil 36,000 (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Natural Gas 4,000 (22% global electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass 24,000 (21% global energy)
Solar (rooftop) 440 (< 1% global electricity)
Wind 150 (2% global electricity)
Hydro – global average 1,400 (16% global electricity)
Hydro – U.S. 5 (6% U.S. electricity)
Nuclear – global average 90 (11% global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)
Nuclear – U.S. 0.1 (19% U.S. electricity)
1) Pollution comes in more guises than just how much CO2 emitted. Fair enough nuclear doesn't produce any CO2, but what it does produce is nuclear waste.
2) 150 people are killed for each trillion kWhr produced by wind turbines? I assume this is meant as people getting killed during a turbine being installed or during maintenance otherwise it makes no sense. Also it should be factored in that since so relatively little energy is being produced by turbines, the amount of deaths will be inflated. Anyways I would imagine the figures for nuclear would go up if the US started to move all the waste around instead of storing most of it on site.
you both keep desperately avoiding the point. Allow me to cut to the heart of it.
Why do you think scientists felt strongly enough to ban together and march against trump in the "march for science." But never have against any other president? No one cares what you or I think. Who do you think people are going to listen to when it comes to the subject of 'anti science'? You? Or the actual scientists who are telling people it's Trump, and the right, who are "raging a war against science." It's the scientists words.
Or are you going to continue on about how you know what's 'anti science' better than the actual scientists lol.
In any case, the points been made enough times. People get it by now. Feel free to keep talking about things (like nuclear energy that you love so much) that no one was talking about in a desperate bid to save face and make it sound like you have some sort of argument. The question was, "is Trump 'anti science'". And it's been clearly demonstrated by scientists that he is. They banned together to march against him, they say he is anti science. No one is going to care if some internet poster disagrees.
My purpose today was to congratulate Chstar for doing the right thing in taking up a job at NOAA to help oppose Trump and protect science. I did that. So I'll just say good luck to you both. If the scientists themselves won't change your mind, then nothing will. But I am satisfied anyone reading will notice that, and they will listen to the scientists over you on this subject.
good luck gents.
first off thank you. I appreciate your kind words from earlier. I don't really deserve 'thanks' though, I just did what I felt was necessary. Taking up a career as an engineer at NOAA will give me more job satisfaction than if I stayed with the DoD. I actually feel like I am making a positive difference in the world now; but it's also a decent paying job. So it's not like I made a selfless decision. It was beneficial to me regardless, so I don't think I deserve any praise. But thank you all the same.
I also appreciate you keeping this conversation on point and not allowing others to confuse the situation by rambling on about unrelated points. It's easy to get caught up in these type of 'false' debates that give the illusion of a debate on this and similar subjects. It's a tactic used by climate change deniers regularly. But you avoided this pitfall completely and kept the singular most important fact clear. Scientists have decried Trump as anti science and anti environment, something they have never done for any previous president. And you are entirely correct, this speaks more volumes than anything that could be said in this topic. and that's what readers will take away from topic, not some random amateurs thoughts on the matter.
so with that said, there isn't much more I can add to the discussion beyond what I stated earlier. I think you largely stated it well.
But just to add the final nail in the coffin to conservative talking points in this topic. No one cares about anyone's thoughts on nuclear energy or whatever else, changing the subject won't help anyone. The take away readers will get from all this is the following:
In the entire history of the United States, scientists have never banned together to oppose a president until Trump. Trumps anti science, anti environment policies and words have caused many scientists to declare Trump is at war with science; forcing us to ban together and March in protest against Trump on Earth day 2017! This should clearly and boldly state which side scientists think is anti science, and it's Trump, and by association the right.
Further scientists continue to ban together to protest Trumps decision to place non scientists, in leading scientific roles. Such as conservative talk show host Sam Clovis as USDA chief scientist despite having no scientific background. Or most disgustingly, Trumps choice to allow Scott Pruitt, a fossil fuel industry lawyer, to lead the EPA!
Ladies and gentlemen there is no debate here. Scientists are telling you Trump is dangerous for science. Scientists are telling you that in U.S history no president has been more detrimental towards science than Donald Trump. Scientists are telling you Trump is so anti science that he is moving us backwards. Scientists are telling you they, for the first time in U.S history, have banned together to march for science, to oppose trump and the ideas he represents. Scientists are telling you Trump is so bad for science, that to ensure this doesn't happen again they are choosing to run for office. Scientists are telling you to help oppose Trump's anti environment and anti science choices to lead positions that were previously held by scientists!
In short, Scientists are telling you Trump and the right are anti science! The evidence is overwhelming. Why listen to anyone but scientists on this scientific subject.
@a_fan and I agree I feel confident this is what readers will take away from this topic. They won't care about amateur users bickering back and forth. Or conservatives trying to change the subject or talk about nuclear energy and other unrelated matter. But people will take away the overwhelming scientific response to Trump. As you said, that speaks more volumes than anything that could ever be written in this topic.
@chstar: Talking about nuclear energy is a distraction from the global warming crisis???!!! It is the only technology that has 0% CO2 emissions that can scale up to provide the power needed. It is a viable solution. Solar works great - as long as its sunny. Even solar advocates admit it needs a back up energy source to work. To say that talking about the solution to the problem because the left, who are anti-science, oppose it is stupid. We should be talking about solutions and about the anti-left who oppose them. The left disagree with the vast majority of scientists on the importance of nuclear energy to help solve the problem - this isn't a distraction. The LEFT's anti-science is what is really inhibiting the solution. Whether we are talking natural gas or nuclear - it is the left that are hindering the reduction of CO2 emissions. Many on the right may not think there is a problem, but they aren't standing in the way of the solution like the anti-science LEFT are.
Science doesn't "side" with one political ideology or another. Science is composed of objective fact derived from controlled observation. Some of those facts support some ideological components from both parties, but it is pretty clear that anti-intellectual and anti-science movements are far stronger within the right, particularly the religious right.
But just to add the final nail in the coffin to conservative talking points in this topic. No one cares about anyone's thoughts on nuclear energy or whatever else, changing the subject won't help anyone. The take away readers will get from all this is the following:
In the entire history of the United States, scientists have never banned together to oppose a president until Trump. Trumps anti science, anti environment policies and words have caused many scientists to declare Trump is at war with science; forcing us to ban together and March in protest against Trump on Earth day 2017! This should clearly and boldly state which side scientists think is anti science, and it's Trump, and by association the right.
Further scientists continue to ban together to protest Trumps decision to place non scientists, in leading scientific roles. Such as conservative talk show host Sam Clovis as USDA chief scientist despite having no scientific background. Or most disgustingly, Trumps choice to allow Scott Pruitt, a fossil fuel industry lawyer, to lead the EPA!
Ladies and gentlemen there is no debate here. Scientists are telling you Trump is dangerous for science. Scientists are telling you that in U.S history no president has been more detrimental towards science than Donald Trump. Scientists are telling you Trump is so anti science that he is moving us backwards. Scientists are telling you they, for the first time in U.S history, have banned together to march for science, to oppose trump and the ideas he represents. Scientists are telling you Trump is so bad for science, that to ensure this doesn't happen again they are choosing to run for office. Scientists are telling you to help oppose Trump's anti environment and anti science choices to lead positions that were previously held by scientists!
In short, Scientists are telling you Trump and the right are anti science! The evidence is overwhelming. Why listen to anyone but scientists on this scientific subject.
god dang! freaking annihilated lol. Why are you even continuing to bother @just_sayin? lol. I mean, do you really think people are going to listen to you over what the actual scientists are saying, on the subject of who is 'anti science'? lol
There will always be some myrmidons for the left's anti-science agenda. No amount of science or statistics will persuade them. But for those reading who do have a commitment to truth - No, scientists are not evenly split on this issue. 65% of AAS scientists support nuclear energy as a clean energy alternative. That's 2 out of 3. Its only that low due to a massive anti-nuclear propaganda. When you actually focus on scientists whose field of study is nuclear the consensus is overwhelming in favor of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy gives off 0% CO2 emissions. There isn't a "cleaner" alternative.
And regarding safety, this may surprise the anti-science left and send them back under their flat-Earther rocks, but of the major energy technologies, Nuclear is the safest - and yes, that includes incidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi. And it isn't even close. According to Forbes:
You think a 2/3 split isn't fairly divided? This is why I don't waste time with you anymore. Your cognitive dissonance is so strong, that rational thought escapes you every single time. Fine then, 65% is good enough in Idiot-Land. What will you do when I tell you that 97% of scientists support the idea that humans are a direct cause of climate change?
Also, while nuclear power does in fact product 0% CO2 emissions, you are, as always, being deceptive. It is tedious as shit that I always have to correct your misinformation. How much CO2 is produced as a product of mining uranium? What about radiation emissions? What about water being used? The water used to keep the plants stable is dumped right back into the ocean or river it was drawn from, which elevates the temperatures of the water significantly. What about the nuclear waste that is created? We have no good way to dispose of it other than to bury it and it stays active for hundreds of years. There is far more to consider than CO2 emissions and this is why scientists are so divided.
Jesus Christ, I swear to god if you ever have a rational thought that isn't riddled with conservative bias and anti-science rhetoric, I might shit my pants.
Science doesn't "side" with one political ideology or another. Science is composed of objective fact derived from controlled observation. Some of those facts support some ideological components from both parties, but it is pretty clear that anti-intellectual and anti-science movements are far stronger within the right, particularly the religious right.
OK, so I see where some on the right are anti-science when it comes to global warming. But I can count several more areas where the left are.
As the Scientific American reported:
41 percent of Democrats are young Earth creationists, and 19 percent doubt that Earth is getting warmer. These numbers do not exactly bolster the common belief that liberals are the people of the science book.
Am I missing something here? The left are anti-science with regard to:
1. Nuclear Power - as pointed out already 65% of AAS scientists agree that it should be a part of the clean energy initiative and is safe
2. Fracking - The majority of scientists say that it is safe - yet the left violently oppose
3. GMOs - Even though GMO's have been declared safe, the further to the left you are the more you disagree with science.
Pew Trust survey concurred that the left are more anti-science on GMO's.
4. Vaccines - And don't give me the "well some on the right oppose it to". The vast majority of those on the right who oppose vaccines do not deny the science, it's just they disagree with the government mandating it. But for the left the issue is they deny the science.
These are just a few items, I could go on (and you really don't want to get me started on environmental extremists and the number of lives they have cost). There is a slight difference when it comes to views of evolution - with the right slightly more likely to think the earth is young - but not by a lot. And the right are more likely to deny that global warming is a problem - though they aren't opposed to fracking and nuclear to the same degree that the anti-science left are. So just why do you think the left is less anti-science when there are many more issues they are anti-science on and their views aren't that different on evolution?
Can we just make this the official response to @just_sayin whenever he claims the left is anti science lol. Anyone else notice how he dares not respond to it. Whats wrong @just_sayin don't you think scientists would know who is and who isn't anti science lol.
But just to add the final nail in the coffin to conservative talking points in this topic. No one cares about anyone's thoughts on nuclear energy or whatever else, changing the subject won't help anyone. The take away readers will get from all this is the following:
In the entire history of the United States, scientists have never banned together to oppose a president until Trump. Trumps anti science, anti environment policies and words have caused many scientists to declare Trump is at war with science; forcing us to ban together and March in protest against Trump on Earth day 2017! This should clearly and boldly state which side scientists think is anti science, and it's Trump, and by association the right.
Further scientists continue to ban together to protest Trumps decision to place non scientists, in leading scientific roles. Such as conservative talk show host Sam Clovis as USDA chief scientist despite having no scientific background. Or most disgustingly, Trumps choice to allow Scott Pruitt, a fossil fuel industry lawyer, to lead the EPA!
Ladies and gentlemen there is no debate here. Scientists are telling you Trump is dangerous for science. Scientists are telling you that in U.S history no president has been more detrimental towards science than Donald Trump. Scientists are telling you Trump is so anti science that he is moving us backwards. Scientists are telling you they, for the first time in U.S history, have banned together to march for science, to oppose trump and the ideas he represents. Scientists are telling you Trump is so bad for science, that to ensure this doesn't happen again they are choosing to run for office. Scientists are telling you to help oppose Trump's anti environment and anti science choices to lead positions that were previously held by scientists!
In short, Scientists are telling you Trump and the right are anti science! The evidence is overwhelming. Why listen to anyone but scientists on this scientific subject.
god dang! freaking annihilated lol. Why are you even continuing to bother @just_sayin? lol. I mean, do you really think people are going to listen to you over what the actual scientists are saying, on the subject of who is 'anti science'? lol
because in the end who are people going to listen to on who's anti science and who's not? Scientists or some conservatively biased forum user?
There is a slight difference when it comes to views of evolution - with the right slightly more likely to think the earth is young - but not by a lot.
Actually the Right is much more than "slightly more likely" to ignore the science of evolution. I know you want to try and distract all day long, trying to make it seem like there's some equivalency here between conservatives and liberals in terms of science acceptance, but this is just total b.s.
Should climate scientists have a major roll in climate policy decisions?
80% agree - Liberal Democrats
67% agree - All Adults
48% agree - Conservative Republicans
Do climate scientists understand whether climate change is occurring?
68% agree - Liberal Democrats
33% agree - All Adults
18% agree - Conservative Republicans
Can climate scientists be trusted to give accurate information on causes of climate change?
70% agree - Liberal Democrats
39% agree - All Adults
15% agree - Conservative Republicans
Those are really sad numbers on the Republican side. It goes along with their general lack of trust and understanding of science and higher education in general.
College and universities have a positive effect on the way things are going in the country:
72% agree - Democrats
36% agree - Republicans
But this should not be surprising considering that conservatives trust religion more than science, look backwards rather than forwards, and are generally comforted by tradition and what they think was great in the past (whether it was true or not) rather than progress and making change in the future. There's a reason why Republican Governor Bobby Jindal named Republicans "the Stupid Party".
Science doesn't "side" with one political ideology or another. Science is composed of objective fact derived from controlled observation. Some of those facts support some ideological components from both parties, but it is pretty clear that anti-intellectual and anti-science movements are far stronger within the right, particularly the religious right.
I agree, just many like myself saying the far left has their share of BS science backed by political agenda.
@sirfizzwhizz: Ever think your beliefs just don't line up with Science, and by extension objective reality?
Not at all. Star Trek Voyager explain science best for me in one episode in season 3, episode 7.
Gallery
Even with 24th century, when Starfleet thinks it knows everything, there is just so much damn shit they get wrong. They assume there is no religion, though god like beings of higher tech and plane of existence are just that to us. Gods.
Bringing down to our debate, Science itself is a bias religion depending on the scientist. Some are Alt Right and state stupid shit off their heads. Same for Alt Left. Its that simple. We are still very much cavemen in terms of scientific achievements.
We are a planet bound specifies still. One earth changing event, and its over for the human race.
We are still reliant on fossil fuels and nuclear energy waste producing plants for out energy needs.
We have only recently in the past few years discovered several states of matter when we only had 4 for many years.
We still know NOTHING about Dark Energy or Dark Matter.
Our Medical increase life for a few more decades though most people still die in their 60s, and those who dont mostly live in a agonizing deathlike state :/
We just discovered t6he string theory which is just theory. Hell, the Theory of Relativity is NOT SCIENTIFIC FACT, just the best way to do calculations and understand things which is wrong. That is why its a theory.
Ect, ect, ect.....
We are jack shit in terms of scientific enlightenment. So I dont feel I have beliefs just don't line up with Science, and by extension objective reality. Maybe you do for thinking you know everything and its absolute, I dont. I know many points of view that make up scientific study and theory is a EVOLVING process. I remember when many scientist believe we were the center of the universe or that the world was flat..... Oh wait, this is 2020 damn near. Scientist surely are never wrong these days when enough of them agree on something :/
We just discovered t6he string theory which is just theory. Hell, the Theory of Relativity is NOT SCIENTIFIC FACT, just the best way to do calculations and understand things which is wrong. That is why its a theory.
You clearly have no idea what a "scientific theory" is.
We just discovered t6he string theory which is just theory. Hell, the Theory of Relativity is NOT SCIENTIFIC FACT, just the best way to do calculations and understand things which is wrong. That is why its a theory.
You clearly have no idea what a "scientific theory" is.
Yes, its a "theory" based on science. They can be challenge and proven wrong.
Nice try. I never said science lies. It works well with what we have. To say its flaweless, and never can be challenge, that is the lie.
Ah, why bother, you Willy, and the rest of the circle jerk will bash anyone not align with your views. Its funny how the people who dislike both the left and right get lumped together with the right. Bias mother truckers.
Nice try. I never said science lies. It works well with what we have. To say its flaweless, and never can be challenge, that is the lie.
Ah, why bother, you Willy, and the rest of the circle jerk will bash anyone not align with your views. Its funny how the people who dislike both the left and right get lumped together with the right. Bias mother truckers.
Lol do you watch this show? Mac, the guy next to the poster, is literally making the same arguments as you.
Nice try. I never said science lies. It works well with what we have. To say its flaweless, and never can be challenge, that is the lie.
Ah, why bother, you Willy, and the rest of the circle jerk will bash anyone not align with your views. Its funny how the people who dislike both the left and right get lumped together with the right. Bias mother truckers.
Lol do you watch this show? Mac, the guy next to the poster, is literally making the same arguments as you.
Im unfamiliar with the show.
I get the point your making though. Your making fun of me not agreeing that we have a perfect understanding of how the Universe works. I stated multiple examples of new discoveries made the last few decades, and things we still failed to do now with our limited understanding.
But those facts of how shit works and how shit is is somehow false to fit a political narrative that Liberals are good and anything Right Wing is bad.
We just discovered t6he string theory which is just theory. Hell, the Theory of Relativity is NOT SCIENTIFIC FACT, just the best way to do calculations and understand things which is wrong. That is why its a theory.
You clearly have no idea what a "scientific theory" is.
Yes, its a "theory" based on science. They can be challenge and proven wrong.
Log in to comment