There was also recent push by the Republicans in the "privatize everything!" to privatize all of the weather -data-. Like, you would literally have to pay a corporation to get weather data, at all, instead of just downloading the raw numbers from NOAA. Because reasons. Because NOAA was "competing" against media corps for weather reporting.
That one pissed me off. Our tax dollars go to pay for NOAA's satellites, models, and data. Those media corps do little more than repackage all that data.
They want NOAA out of the weather forecasting game? Tell those media companies to launch their own damn satellites.
Remember-- a couple of years ago, there was a bill in the House that would kill the National Science Foundation's autonomy but it was pitched as an increase in total NASA funding, which it was reported as on social media headlines. Reddit thought it was the greatest thing ever for STEM until people started to point things out.
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.
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.
Was there not a thread created yesterday where people actually believed Trump when he said some non-negative things about climate change? As you can see, he's full of shit. Actions always speak louder than words.
The only way you can politicize science is by having a mandate on what researchers are allowed to research. This is literally Trump taking someones food off the table, or the roof out from over their head because he is an uneducated, narcissistic piece of shit who doesn't want to hear the truth.
We are entering an age of fascist anti-intellectualism in the United States of America. What a fucking world.
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.
I don't know what's worse, he fact that this decision quickened our inevitable demise, or the fact that Trump and his ilk won't love long enough to see their decisions come back and bite them in the ass.
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.
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.
This of course caused it to pushed as religious conviction, funny how that happens.
I mean, first off, the data isn't there, do you remember how cold it got last winter??? I just don't believe it, everything is in God's hands, do you honestly think we're so important that we can actually make a difference on something of that scale? How arrogant are you?
/s....My Mom and a few other family members totally believe this, they're also all up on the Trump train, Thanksgiving is going to be awesome.
Edit: This always results in me bringing up evidence, and it getting shoved aside because apparently global warming is an opinion akin to whether or not turkey is better then ham.
This of course caused it to pushed as religious conviction, funny how that happens.
I mean, first off, the data isn't there, do you remember how cold it got last winter??? I just don't believe it, everything is in God's hands, do you honestly think we're so important that we can actually make a difference on something of that scale? How arrogant are you?
/s....My Mom and a few other family members totally believe this, they're also all up on the Trump train, Thanksgiving is going to be awesome.
Edit: This always results in me bringing up evidence, and it getting shoved aside because apparently global warming is an opinion akin to whether or not turkey is better then ham.
The "do you think we can make a difference to the environment" talking point always seemed especially stupid to me. Like, what the fuck do you think a nuclear bomb does?
As someone who worked a bit with the science and tech committee this seems like there will be cuts but there will be push back in congress (and likely the pentagon and intelligence community) due to jobs, farming and transportation needing the information, worst case is small cuts and more funding directed at NOAA. Its not going to be completely scrapped as the article says. In fact it doesn't even mention a reduction in funding
“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.
“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies
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.
I'm not sure I even understand the denial from the viewpoint of the rich - there's massive amounts of new money to be made by pushing the country and the world in greener directions. Just think of all the stuff you can tell people they need to buy/rebuy in order to save the world: solar panels, batteries, electric cars, charging stations, etc...
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.
Ignoring the issue until the Earth is in flames, I guess.
The truth is, a lot of people know that climate change won't have a significant impact in their own lifetimes and couldn't give less of a shit about what happens to the planet after they died. "Why should I suffer (read: have an insignificantly less pleasant life) for future generations?"
And you'll turn on CNN and you will see a "debate" where some republican fuck head says how we couldn't possibly see this coming while the CNN panelists argue that the info was there all along and the Trump presidency silenced it and the same republican will deny that was ever the case. And repeat this horseshit for the next 500 years.
I'm not sure I even understand the denial from the viewpoint of the rich - there's massive amounts of new money to be made by pushing the country and the world in greener directions. Just think of all the stuff you can tell people they need to buy/rebuy in order to save the world: solar panels, batteries, electric cars, charging stations, etc...
There was a great article on bloomberg yesterday about fake news articles targeting Elon Musk. People who short stocks and utility and energy companies are behind it.
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.
"Why good citizen, you'll have the best job at the CO2 factory! You'll be able to afford a big house and car. Never mind those scientists, they can't even agree on what to call climate change! Not so smart after all, if you ask me!"
The fact that most science runs counter to the right wing agenda makes the idea of "politicized science" being treated like a real thing fucking horrifying. let's just make it easier to ignore all facts we don't like because we don't want to deal with them.
Yet another reason why I find absurd this notion that US citizens need to somehow conform and give him a chance and that people everyone should understand and relate to the poor souls who voted Trump.
This guy is a huge danger to the entire world, as is the GOP. Something has to be done.
I did and he fucked up even before his first day. This is atrocious and absolutely unjustifiable. We can't just sit here and let him literally destroy the earth. This is honestly a global crisis and other countries should be gravely concerned.
There was also recent push by the Republicans in the "privatize everything!" to privatize all of the weather -data-. Like, you would literally have to pay a corporation to get weather data, at all, instead of just downloading the raw numbers from NOAA. Because reasons. Because NOAA was "competing" against media corps for weather reporting.
We're going to build a giant plate to cool the earth and reflect the heat! The job creators and people of status will live underneath it, while the workers and people with naturally high UV resistance will have the benefits of living on top of the plate and maintaining productivity. Never the two shall meet, this really is a win-win!
“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.
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.
