Support NeoGAF

[jelly]

He sounds insane in this.

Trump:
I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know.

Guardian:
The only award that could be found seems to be a 2007 prize given to the Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey by the Metropolitan Golf Association Foundation. That award was received by the grounds director, Greg Nicoli, for preserving 45 acres of bird habitat on the property.

A few years later, Trump cut down a small forest in Virginia for the sake of another golf course, and in May of 2011 New Jersey’s department of environmental protection fined him for repeated violations. He has also called for dismantling basic Environmental Protection Agency programs and rules.

Vanity Fair (2011):
In June 2008, Trump traveled to Scotland to discuss his plans to construct “the finest golf course in the world” on the site of some environmentally fragile sand dunes that he described as “kind of disgusting.”

The Wall Street Journal piece about the hearing is delightful:

After a representative of the Scottish Wildlife Trust said Mr. Trump had ignored his own environmental consultants’ advice, Mr. Trump said he didn’t need to read the reports, since he was already an expert.


“I would consider myself an environmentalist in the true sense of the word,” Mr. Trump said, a comment that drew so much laughter from the public gallery that the inquiry chairman had to call for order.

Mr. Trump added that putting a golf course on the dunes would actually preserve them, since “they wouldn’t blow away in a storm.”

Trump’s Scottish scuffle was the subject of a May 2008 Vanity Fair investigation by Alex Shoumatoff. And, as Shoumatoff reported, Trump doesn’t have much outward affection for animals—not that this is necessarily a prerequisite for wanting to protect them, we guess:

“Trump says, ‘Do you think manatees know they’re alive? They’re like huge amoebas, constantly getting hit by boats. I don’t think they’re 100 percent there.’ I say they’re related to elephants, so they must have some smarts, and it’s not like they want to be shredded by propellers.”

 

[Ayato Kanzaki]

Is everyone ignoring this line?



I agree with this. I'd like NASA to refocus their goal on space and space exploration. We have other agencies that can be dedicated to climate science. NASA's scientists, technology, and infrastructure is invaluable and I doubt their progress (such as the satellites mentioned) will be decommissioned. There are other organizations in the government that can make their prime focus climate change.

Whether or not it will actually be implemented this way, no one can say.

There's no way the Trump administration is going to transfer the 2Bn budget for the NASA earth programs, to those agencies, whatever their name. Trump and his cronies are going to defund the hell out of it while pretending they're not touching research on global warming.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

He sounds insane in this.

Trump:
I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know.

Guardian:
The only award that could be found seems to be a 2007 prize given to the Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey by the Metropolitan Golf Association Foundation. That award was received by the grounds director, Greg Nicoli, for preserving 45 acres of bird habitat on the property.

A few years later, Trump cut down a small forest in Virginia for the sake of another golf course, and in May of 2011 New Jersey’s department of environmental protection fined him for repeated violations. He has also called for dismantling basic Environmental Protection Agency programs and rules.

Vanity Fair (2011):
In June 2008, Trump traveled to Scotland to discuss his plans to construct “the finest golf course in the world” on the site of some environmentally fragile sand dunes that he described as “kind of disgusting.”

The Wall Street Journal piece about the hearing is delightful:

After a representative of the Scottish Wildlife Trust said Mr. Trump had ignored his own environmental consultants’ advice, Mr. Trump said he didn’t need to read the reports, since he was already an expert.


“I would consider myself an environmentalist in the true sense of the word,” Mr. Trump said, a comment that drew so much laughter from the public gallery that the inquiry chairman had to call for order.

Mr. Trump added that putting a golf course on the dunes would actually preserve them, since “they wouldn’t blow away in a storm.”

Trump’s Scottish scuffle was the subject of a May 2008 Vanity Fair investigation by Alex Shoumatoff. And, as Shoumatoff reported, Trump doesn’t have much outward affection for animals—not that this is necessarily a prerequisite for wanting to protect them, we guess:

“Trump says, ‘Do you think manatees know they’re alive? They’re like huge amoebas, constantly getting hit by boats. I don’t think they’re 100 percent there.’ I say they’re related to elephants, so they must have some smarts, and it’s not like they want to be shredded by propellers.”

Lol wtf

 

[kaching]

For everyone who is freaking out, did you read this portion:


Sounds like he wants NASA focused on space exploration, and a different agency focused on earth-centric science. Not sure what agency that would be, however.

Before you pose a question to everyone else in a 500+ post thread whether they've read the OP, you might want to read at least some of the more recent posts in this thread. Because, yes, people did see that and have already explained what's wrong with it.

 

[EGM1966]

He sounds insane in this.

Trump:
I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know.

Guardian:
The only award that could be found seems to be a 2007 prize given to the Trump National Golf Club in New Jersey by the Metropolitan Golf Association Foundation. That award was received by the grounds director, Greg Nicoli, for preserving 45 acres of bird habitat on the property.

A few years later, Trump cut down a small forest in Virginia for the sake of another golf course, and in May of 2011 New Jersey’s department of environmental protection fined him for repeated violations. He has also called for dismantling basic Environmental Protection Agency programs and rules.

Vanity Fair (2011):
In June 2008, Trump traveled to Scotland to discuss his plans to construct “the finest golf course in the world” on the site of some environmentally fragile sand dunes that he described as “kind of disgusting.”

The Wall Street Journal piece about the hearing is delightful:

After a representative of the Scottish Wildlife Trust said Mr. Trump had ignored his own environmental consultants’ advice, Mr. Trump said he didn’t need to read the reports, since he was already an expert.


“I would consider myself an environmentalist in the true sense of the word,” Mr. Trump said, a comment that drew so much laughter from the public gallery that the inquiry chairman had to call for order.

Mr. Trump added that putting a golf course on the dunes would actually preserve them, since “they wouldn’t blow away in a storm.”

Trump’s Scottish scuffle was the subject of a May 2008 Vanity Fair investigation by Alex Shoumatoff. And, as Shoumatoff reported, Trump doesn’t have much outward affection for animals—not that this is necessarily a prerequisite for wanting to protect them, we guess:

“Trump says, ‘Do you think manatees know they’re alive? They’re like huge amoebas, constantly getting hit by boats. I don’t think they’re 100 percent there.’ I say they’re related to elephants, so they must have some smarts, and it’s not like they want to be shredded by propellers.”

Would be funny if he wasn't now president elect.

Lost my composure a bit on the manatee one.

Could be a real messy 4 years - assuming he lasts four years in role that is.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

What the hell? Isn't this the definition of politically driven? How is global warming research politically driven? The only people denying it are politicians and lobbyists.

Pure Orwellian double-think.

So what's the moderates' opinion about this? Because I can understand old, rich, corrupt people denying climate change, but I'm not sure why any civilian wouldn't think climate change denial is idiotic and dangerous.

They are brainwashed by Fox News and other propaganda. It's all liberal propaganda you see, the planet is fine!

Oh god I hope not that would mean he got a second term.

LOL

Spoiler

Yes, because it's bullshit. No other agencies can launch or maintain satellites, which are necessary to study the effects of climate change. NASAs earth-science division is one of the jewels of NASA and has saved countless lives both in its early warning systems for natural disasters, and in its drought prediction systems for farmers. This is a disaster for anyone who actually understands what NASA does in this role and how difficult it would be to replicate their expertise.

There is no one else to take over, particularly since they're getting ready to gut other climate agencies.

Thank you for this. Phil Plait confirms that the whole "it's OK, the NOAA will take care of it" thing is BS, too (already posted, but I'm reposting because it's worth a read).

 

[HTupolev]

To counteract the politicization of science, we will defund anyone whose results don't agree with our political agenda.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

To counteract the politicization of science, we will defund anyone whose results don't agree with our political agenda.

This is the root of the story written out in plain, non-politicized language.

 

[Xe4]

Is everyone ignoring this line?



I agree with this. I'd like NASA to refocus their goal on space and space exploration. We have other agencies that can be dedicated to climate science. NASA's scientists, technology, and infrastructure is invaluable and I doubt their progress (such as the satellites mentioned) will be decommissioned. There are other organizations in the government that can make their prime focus climate change.

Whether or not it will actually be implemented this way, no one can say.

No we're not. NASA has never been purely about space exploration and reasearch. They have always done tons of good work in atmospheric reasearch, and on top of that, atmospheric and earth sciences and astrophysics and space exploration go hand in hand.

So, no thst line is a bullshit excuse. They're not going to change departments to make reasearch into climate change more difficult. They can't get the science to agree from them, so they de-fund the science. It's a classic republican tactic, and they do the same thing with reasearch on guns by the CDC.

 

[mreddie]

Trump wants fucking WALL-E

Fuck...

 

[Netherscourge]

May as well just close NASA.

If we're removing environmental regulations and ignoring climate change, then we'll all be dead before the technology will be discovered to save mankind from a runaway greenhouse effect anyway.

Perhaps if we speed up our extinction, the dinosaurs or some other form of life can make a brief comeback before the sun finally consumes our world.

 

[FyreWulff]

Is everyone ignoring this line?



I agree with this. I'd like NASA to refocus their goal on space and space exploration. We have other agencies that can be dedicated to climate science. NASA's scientists, technology, and infrastructure is invaluable and I doubt their progress (such as the satellites mentioned) will be decommissioned. There are other organizations in the government that can make their prime focus climate change.

Whether or not it will actually be implemented this way, no one can say.

As a huge space nerd.. deep space exploration is mostly masturbation and ego-tripping at this point. The large amount of NASA's work is "local" science - geologists, meteorologists, biologists, so on and so forth. We need to study our planet so we know what to look for, compare, and investigate when we reach other worlds.

NASA is also the only one capable of launches, maintenance, and communications with the satellite.

NASA is even the reason we've gone from going "maybe a tornado will happen sometime this week?" to damn near being able to predict the exact neighborhoods in a city it'll hit.

 

[FStubbs]

This is the thing that makes me bonkers about Evangelical support for max exploitation of the earth's resources and being unsupportive of cleaner fuel sources.

Taking care of the Earth doesn't mean draining it dry.

Evangelicals don't care one way or the other about environmentalism besides hating liberals who are for it. They're motivated by racism.

 

[Nafai1123]

Climate change science is not politicized by scientists you orange fuck-head. It's politicized by people like you claiming you know more than scientists do.

 

[_Ryo_]

The lack of empathy these kind of people have for their children and the planet is outright despicable.

 

[thepotatoman]

That's the +4°F gobal projection for business as usual projection on top and +2°F on bottom if we work to slow down emissions. Note that temperature over land rises faster than temperature over water, so we're talking like +8°F here.

Do we need an even higher emission scenario for worse than business as usual?

 

[Raiden]

Im sorry but extra funding for deep space exploration exites me too much to be really mad at him for this. Ideally would be military budget cuts in favor for Nasa though..but hey.

 

[Nelo Ice]

Im sorry but extra funding for deep space exploration exites me too much to be really mad at him for this. Ideally would be military budget cuts in favor for Nasa though..but hey.

We won't be able to get to deep space if we don't have a planet to live on.

 

[Ac30]

That's the +4°F gobal projection for business as usual projection on top and +2°F on bottom if we work to slow down emissions. Note that temperature over land rises faster than temperature over water, so we're talking like +8°F here.

Do we need an even higher emission scenario for worse than business as usual?

Damn am I happy I'll be dead by 2080. Of course we'll probably be having wars before that but it's a comforting thought.

 

[kaching]

Im sorry but extra funding for deep space exploration exites me too much to be really mad at him for this. Ideally would be military budget cuts in favor for Nasa though..but hey.

Don't get too excited - there's nothing in this announcement that clearly guarantees that deep space exploration will get any *more* funding, just that it won't be cut like they're proposing to do for planetar-, oh I'm sorry, "politicized" science.

I mean, Trump's campaign goal is to explore the "entire" solar system by end of the century, which gives him plenty of time to just punt that goal down the line to the next president. It really leaves the bulk of the work to future administrations.

 

[Lowmelody]

Nothings gonna happen to the planet. Leave it alone. Trump is right. Waste of money. People are starving out here. Don't waste money on universe/planet exploring. If all humans didn't even try to explore outside the earth, the world will still rotate and it's not gonna end. Been here years and years before humans and will remain here after millions of years. Who created all dis, earth/planets/uinverse it's in his hands. We can't destroy the earth unless a rock hits us (not the 2020 Rock,lol).
So yea trump is right, don't even bother giving money to Nasa. Who cares if there's a planet out there. We never gonna get there. Waste of time and money.

Ow my Balls!

 

[Crayon]

Ow my Balls!

I'm 'bating!

 

[digdug2k]

The more I think about this the more angering it is. Some GOP congressman will take some scientific study he doesn't like the results of, politicize it, and that apparently means we just have to stop funding any studies of it. Not because its not useful. Or because its bad science or something. Just because its a contentious issue with someone. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings... with science.

What a day and age to be alive in. Thank god we've got a president who tells it like it is.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Are we ready to go to war yet?
Every day I read another story about Trump, his government or the general empowering of the radical right in the US drives me closer to wanting full on rebellion.

 

[cooljeanius]

We won't be able to get to deep space if we don't have a planet to live on.

They somehow managed it in Interstellar

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Privatized climate change initiatives... driven by the Koch brothers.

What will happen is that they will continue to be "skeptical" of climate change but not outright deny it, and spend the rest of Trump's term arguing about it while lessening restrictions.

My best case scenario is diminishing with each person Trump is adding to his cabinet. I guess all that's left is to see what he does about the Paris Agreement.

 

[hydragonwarrior]

To counteract the politicization of science, we will defund anyone whose results don't agree with our political agenda.

What Harper did in Canada, basically.

 

[Jmanunknown]

The more I think about this the more angering it is. Some GOP congressman will take some scientific study he doesn't like the results of, politicize it, and that apparently means we just have to stop funding any studies of it. Not because its not useful. Or because its bad science or something. Just because its a contentious issue with someone. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings... with science.

What a day and age to be alive in. Thank god we've got a president who tells it like it is.

Trump is basically at the mercy of the republican congress now. He's done so much shady and corrupt stuff in his life they probably have a list of things ready to impeach him with in case he gets out of line. Its sad that future generations of humans are gonna be harmed by people who will be long gone before the really negative consequences take effect.

 

[avaya]

I'm thinking straight up sanctions from China + EU. That double team should be sufficient to crush any bloc. Let's see how far this goes.

Assuming France avoids Le Pen and Germany doesn't faceplant with Afd/CDU implosion.

 

[Stone Ocean]

Good luck, future generations.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

Someone needs to go all out on Trump on this one. He hasn't even talked to an actual scientist yet, looking at that 'half' statement. The GOP may want this, but it cannot happen.

Also I'm fairly sure a lot of that funding and operation is actually tied to the UN or international space agencies, so once again, it would lead up to the US being sanctioned or sued to hell and beyond. The world cannot, and likely will not, stand for shit like this.
On the brighter side of things: NASA future program names should be very amusing to read.

 

[Opto]

The Wall Street Journal piece about the hearing is delightful:

After a representative of the Scottish Wildlife Trust said Mr. Drumpf had ignored his own environmental consultants’ advice, Mr. Drumpf said he didn’t need to read the reports, since he was already an expert.

Put another one in the evidence column for him not being able to read

 

[Technosteve]

uncle trump understands America, e.g. America is fucked, we moving to mars!

 

[The Auxiliary]

Doesn't he have people telling him that climate change is literally a matter of national security?? He's directly putting the country-- and the entire world-- at risk by ignoring it!

 

[RoboPlato]

Holy shit

I knew he would limit funding but I never expected him to completely strip the division.

 

[Kraut]

Just wanted to point out another aspect of how stupid this shift is:

Trump says he wants to redirect funds to space exploration, with the specific goal of exploring the solar system by the end of the century. How exactly is he going to guarantee that this remains NASA's primary goal for the next 84 years? Does he actually intend on fulfilling everyone's nightmare scenario by becoming an immortal mecha-Trump that rules America for all of our life times?

This promise is a joke, completely indicative of Trump's way of thinking. He can't possibly be held accountable if, fifty years from now, NASA is still struggling to get to Mars because of a lack of funding.

Contrast to Kennedy's promise: by the end of the decade, we will have landed men on the moon. This was completely within his or his immediate successor's abilities, and low and behold, we did it, despite Kennedy's death.

I feel pretty ashamed for all of my fellow space-enthusiasts who will latch onto this without a second thought (thankfully, I haven't seen many of these here on gaf). This is hand-waving posturing intended to distract us from Trump's real goal of dismantling any actions within the government to limit the profits of him and his lackwits.

These changes are short-sighted, dishonest, and, most crucially, threaten future economic and environmental stability for the whole planet.

 

[leroidys]

Doesn't he have people telling him that climate change is literally a matter of national security?? He's directly putting the country-- and the entire world-- at risk by ignoring it!

He's been skipping his daily briefings. Trump is not and has never been interested in actually learning anything.

 

[Blatz]

This is related and I could use some advice/suggestions on how to respond. I posted this on Facebook:

For Some, Scientists Aren't The Authority On Science
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/11/28/503551431/for-some-scientists-aren-t-the-authority-on-science

And someone I know commented with this:
"The majority of University Professors are liberals. If they weren't, maybe they could be trusted by more people."

I have thought of about 20 different responses. I don't want to be too confrontational, but I want to reveal how willfully ignorant a statement like this is. Any suggestions?

 

[Tregard]

Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.

W H A T D O E S T H I S M E A N

 

[sasliquid]

W H A T D O E S T H I S M E A N

By Solid he means science they can make fat stacks with (and also kill a disproportionate amount of minorities with)

 

[Couleurs]

W H A T D O E S T H I S M E A N

Scientific findings that happen to agree with what him and his fucking dipshit moronic base wants to hear

 

[blu]

This is related and I could use some advice/suggestions on how to respond. I posted this on Facebook:

For Some, Scientists Aren't The Authority On Science
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/11/28/503551431/for-some-scientists-aren-t-the-authority-on-science

And someone I know commented with this:
"The majority of University Professors are liberals. If they weren't, maybe they could be trusted by more people."

I have thought of about 20 different responses. I don't want to be too confrontational, but I want to reveal how willfully ignorant a statement like this is. Any suggestions?

Perhaps if more conservatives pursued scientific careers.. But as things are today, they'll have to trust 'those damned liberals'.

Ask them if they'd rather have a liberal pilot fly a plane, or a 'trustworthy' but unqualified conservative.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Perhaps if more conservatives pursued scientific careers.. But as things are today, they'll have to trust 'those damned liberals'.

Ask them if they'd rather have a liberal pilot fly a plane, or a 'trustworthy' but unqualified conservative.

This is good. I'll remember to use it if in a similar situation.

 

[LakeEarth]

Im sorry but extra funding for deep space exploration exites me too much to be really mad at him for this. Ideally would be military budget cuts in favor for Nasa though..but hey.

You're falling for what millions of Americans did. Trump loves to randomly promise things with no intention of following up. Eventually he'll land on something that you want, and that's what you end up remembering.

 

[Fallout-NL]

This is related and I could use some advice/suggestions on how to respond. I posted this on Facebook:

For Some, Scientists Aren't The Authority On Science
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2016/11/28/503551431/for-some-scientists-aren-t-the-authority-on-science

And someone I know commented with this:
"The majority of University Professors are liberals. If they weren't, maybe they could be trusted by more people."

I have thought of about 20 different responses. I don't want to be too confrontational, but I want to reveal how willfully ignorant a statement like this is. Any suggestions?

I have thought of about 20 different responses.

Yeah... that statement (and most statements on this subject) is (are) so aggresively stupid that you go through about 20 possible responses before you are robbed of the will to live.

 

[Jetman]

Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “ a view shared by half the climatologists in the world We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it.”

Fuck you. 98% of climatologists confirm and agree that man is leaving a detrimental footprint on the planet and that climate change exists. 2% don't. Where's he getting this 'half' number?

 

[Lord Thrappleper The 49th]

I'll be honest. I'd rather not know the bullet is coming prior to my death. So when the world ends, at least I would never have known about it.

 

[acheron_xl]

I'll be honest. I'd rather not know the bullet is coming prior to my death. So when the world ends, at least I would never have known about it.

At least you'll go out knowing you're not going to miss much when you're gone.

 

[Formless]

Fuck you. 98% of climatologists confirm and agree that man is leaving a detrimental footprint on the planet and that climate change exists. 2% don't. Where's he getting this 'half' number?

Post truth. Don't matter.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Ask them if they'd rather have a liberal pilot fly a plane, or a 'trustworthy' but unqualified conservative.

They already made that choice on November 8th.

The problem is none of them have to understand how this plane works to use it, and so it might as well be magic. The whole world is like this for these people.

Basically this. These are the kind of people who use cell phones daily to post on internet message boards that science is bunk without the nearest inkling of irony.