Climate scientists will launch anonymous hotline for government workers to report Trump meddling - Polidicks

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51563791]But none of his policies have been implemented yet so like i said it is a bit premature to judge him on this already.[/QUOTE] So, what should we judge him with the view that none of his policies will be implemented... unless they are? Should we just ignore our capability for causal reasoning?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51563840]He literally said "nobody really knows" if climate change is real despite the fact we know it is completely and utterly real! How the hell can you not be worried that we have a science denier as President of the United States?[/QUOTE] So denying one scientific fact makes him immediately anti science, well aint you just puritan. [QUOTE=Recurracy;51563876]Is it really paranoia to state that 50% of the Netherlands will be flooded due to the choices that are likely going to be made by Trump's cabinet, which is easily backed up by accurate data?[/QUOTE] Yes it is just fear mongering besides what is water management.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51564179]So denying one scientific fact makes him immediately anti science, well aint you just puritan.[/QUOTE] Can you look at what you just wrote? "[B]Denying[/B] a scientific [B]fact[/B]" Yes, denying things that the majority of the scientific community agrees on is pretty anti-science, especially when it's something that has global consequences. It's like if someone denied that gravity existed. "Oh, it's only [I]one[/I] little fact. He's not anti-science."

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51562097]Aren't they a bit paranoid about this, sure Trump got a different view when it comes to climate changes but all the steps they are taking seem a bit excessive to me.[/QUOTE] Trump's team asked them for a list of scientists working on climate change, and for each person a list of every environmental conference they've attended. So no I don't think they're overreacting, because it sounds like Trump team is about to launch a witch hunt on climate scientists.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51564179]Yes it is just fear mongering besides what is water management.[/QUOTE] the netherlands won't survive another metre of water

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51563791]Well after reading that article i only see a incompetence but no deliberate attempt by the Canadian government to suppress information. So like i said in my first post i think they are just to paranoid.:tinfoil:[/QUOTE] Considering this was followed up with a universal gag order on all government funded scientists, it was most certainly a suppression attempt. You don't make it illegal for scientists to talk about their research unless you're trying to keep that information from becoming public. [QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51564179]So denying one scientific fact makes him immediately anti science, well aint you just puritan.[/QUOTE] Yes denying scientific fact makes you anti-science. Parts of Trump's cabinet also deny evolution. That's two scientific facts denied by the Trump administration. Face it, they're anti-science. [QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51564179]Yes it is just fear mongering besides what is water management.[/QUOTE] How the fuck are you going to manage the ocean rising above most of your landmass? Is Norway just supposed to convert all their cities to Venice's?

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51562193]He is not even in office yet and besides what is going to do round up all the climate scientists in the US and destroy there data in one big bon fire? Maybe he will just cut subsidies for green tech so it will be forced to become more competitive and not need any subsidies to stay a float. I swear all this fear mongering regarding Trump and what he might to do is just getting ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Lol it isn't "fear mongering" if it's based on actual policy proposals. Trump wants to defund NASA climate research, gut the EPA, and repeal or deregulate almost every major climate policy already enacted. Trumps administration has said its official stance is climate change denialism. Trump has ominously asked for lists of employees from all climate research institutions. Trump has appointed a cabinet full of hardline climate change deniers. "Fear mongering" is drumming up irrational fears based on misinformation or generalizations. That is not what is happening here. We know what Trump is planning to do. Fear about his administration's response to climate change is rational and well founded.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51564179]So denying one scientific fact makes him immediately anti science, well aint you just puritan.[/QUOTE] Uh yes, that's the definition of anti-science. Denying scientific proof. Which is what Trump is doing. Literally his policies will fucking screw your country, you shouldn't be defending him.

They're only paranoid if they're wrong. And if they're wrong that's good for us collectively, as a human race.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51563791]Well after reading that article i only see a incompetence but no deliberate attempt by the Canadian government to suppress information. So like i said in my first post i think they are just to paranoid.:tinfoil: [/QUOTE] Yeah, like incompetence makes it all right. But there is actual suppression going on, which heavily hints that gutting the oceanic archives was deliberate. How is it paranoia to prepare to things that recently happened in neighbor? I should've immediately posted this for context. [quote]The program is not limited to climate issues, or even the environment, but critics have argued that Global Warming is the key target. Since the ban there has been an 80% fall in coverage of Global Warming in the Canadian media, according to leaked Environment Canada documents.[/quote] [url]http://www.iflscience.com/environment/canadian-weather-forecasters-forbidden-discussing-climate-change/[/url]

thenukenl i hope you leave decision making about our future up to people who have educated and trained themselves for years on the subject

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;51564590]Yes denying scientific fact makes you anti-science. Parts of Trump's cabinet also deny evolution. That's two scientific facts denied by the Trump administration. Face it, they're anti-science.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=The Vman;51564210]Can you look at what you just wrote? "[B]Denying[/B] a scientific [B]fact[/B]" Yes, denying things that the majority of the scientific community agrees on is pretty anti-science, especially when it's something that has global consequences. It's like if someone denied that gravity existed. "Oh, it's only [I]one[/I] little fact. He's not anti-science."[/QUOTE] Well by this standard any US president has been anti science because lets face it how many have agreed with evolution? So calling Trump anti science just on the grounds of this is not much of argument. [QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51564633]Uh yes, that's the definition of anti-science. Denying scientific proof. Which is what Trump is doing. Literally his policies will fucking screw your country, you shouldn't be defending him.[/QUOTE] Oh i am terribly sorry for defending someone you say i should not defending. Next time il contact you in advance for approval when il think of defending someone. But seriously i am not a fan of the orange man either but the amount hysteria that surrounds him and his possible policies is just getting pathetic. Just because he denied it does not necessarily mean that his policy will entail purposely destroying the world. It will more likely mean that climate change policy will take a back seat and economic policy take a higher priority. This does not automaticaly mean that because of this the world will end. [QUOTE=Vlevs;51566923]Yeah, like incompetence makes it all right. But there is actual suppression going on, which heavily hints that gutting the oceanic archives was deliberate. How is it paranoia to prepare to things that recently happened in neighbor? I should've immediately posted this for context. [url]http://www.iflscience.com/environment/canadian-weather-forecasters-forbidden-discussing-climate-change/[/url][/QUOTE] Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and so far i have not seen any official Canadian government document that states that it is goverment policy to suppress information regarding climate change. [QUOTE=Recurracy;51567389]thenukenl i hope you leave decision making about our future up to people who have educated and trained themselves for years on the subject[/QUOTE] Nice argument.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51567714]Well by this standard any US president has been anti science because lets face it how many have agreed with evolution? So calling Trump anti science just on the grounds of this is not much of argument.[/QUOTE] What? What president has said they deny evolution? In any case, this is different because it's denial of a scientific fact that affects his actual policies toward something that is factually harmful to the environment. Denying evolution, while definitely a sign of absolute stupidity and a warning not to trust your judgement on anything ever, isn't something that makes you directly cause harm. So if a president were to publicly say that evolution is a hoax by the Chinese or that nobody really knows, yes that would make you an anti-science moron, but it wouldn't immediately make you as harmful as denying climate change. [editline]22nd December 2016[/editline] And of course evolution is also different in that the retardedly religious population of America makes it impossible for a president to be non-religious or at least openly so. So obviously you're going to have religious presidents. And I'm not saying I will be [I]surprised[/I] to hear it if you have examples of a president openly denying evolution, but it clearly has a basis in keeping their religious supporters happy whereas climate change doesn't have a religious reason to be denied. Whatever the case, denying science makes you anti-science, or "a moron". [editline]22nd December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51567714]Just because he denied it does not necessarily mean that his policy will entail purposely destroying the world. It will more likely mean that climate change policy will take a back seat and economic policy take a higher priority. This does not automaticaly mean that because of this the world will end.[/QUOTE] Sans the over dramatic and vague use of the term 'end of the world', yes, it actually does. Climate change is already past the point of no return and we need to [I]dramatically[/I] change the world [I]fast[/I] in order to [I]limit[/I] the damage of it. [I]"It will more likely mean that climate change police will take a back seat"[/I] is already insanely harmful.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51567714] Just because he denied it does not necessarily mean that his policy will entail purposely destroying the world. It will more likely mean that climate change policy will take a back seat and economic policy take a higher priority. This does not automaticaly mean that because of this the world will end. [/QUOTE] Does the world need to end before climate change policy becomes high priority? We know right now just how much will be screwed up due to climate change and we know that humans are a large contributor to these changes. Stopping pollution is absolutely necessary for our future, but Trump denies this and goes on to say the complete opposite of the facts we know. How can you act so non concerned?

[QUOTE=Tinter;51567852]How can you act so non concerned?[/QUOTE] because he doesn't actually care

[QUOTE=The Vman;51564210]denying things that the majority of the scientific community agrees on is pretty anti-science[/QUOTE] Thats the essence of scientific progression... what are you talking about

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51567877]Thats the essence of scientific progression... what are you talking about[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with this comment, denying climate change will not lead to scientific progression

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51567714] Oh i am terribly sorry for defending someone you say i should not defending. Next time il contact you in advance for approval when il think of defending someone. But seriously i am not a fan of the orange man either but the amount hysteria that surrounds him and his possible policies is just getting pathetic. [/QUOTE] I thought it was the SJWs who are supposed to be the tone-police. [QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51567714]Nice argument.[/QUOTE] It wasn't supposed to be an argument, you're being pointed to the door.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51567714]Well by this standard any US president has been anti science because lets face it how many have agreed with evolution? So calling Trump anti science just on the grounds of this is not much of argument.[/quote] Uh, at least since 1950s when DNA's role in heredity was proven, evolution has been accepted as a fact in scientific community. So any creationist president since would be soundly anti-science, like a young earth creationist would've been anti-science since the establishment of US. That argument can't used to pardon Trump's anti-science stance in any way. [QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51567714]Just because he denied it does not necessarily mean that his policy will entail purposely destroying the world. It will more likely mean that climate change policy will take a back seat and economic policy take a higher priority. This does not automaticaly mean that because of this the world will end. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence and so far i have not seen any official Canadian government document that states that it is goverment policy to suppress information regarding climate change.[/QUOTE] Since you just moved goalposts so far that nothing short of official announcement of serious intent to destroy the world would convince you, I'll just state that getting direct info from minutiae of government agency policies is hard even in the age of internet and leave this here. Now who's paranoid? [url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/scientists-lament-closing-of-key-advisory-office-1.756700[/url]

[QUOTE=Vlevs;51567906]Uh, at least since 1950s when DNA's role in heredity was proven, evolution has been accepted as a fact in scientific community. So any creationist president since would be soundly anti-science, like a young earth creationist would've been anti-science since the establishment of US. That argument can't used to pardon Trump's anti-science stance in any way.[/QUOTE] adding on to this, the most common defense is that "evolution is just a theory", and that means everything to people who don't care about science, despite overwhelming evidence that supports it

[QUOTE=Phycosymo;51567897]I thought it was the SJWs who are supposed to be the tone-police[/QUOTE] Since when is calling others hysterical and calling there reaction pathetic tone policing? I only expressed my opinion and which include a ask for calm but not for any form of silencing. [QUOTE=Phycosymo;51567897]It wasn't supposed to be an argument, you're being pointed to the door.[/QUOTE] Oh how tolerant of him. Just for a moment i thought that was his really argument. [QUOTE=LZTYBRN;51567875]because he doesn't actually care[/QUOTE] Where did i say that again becuase i am unable to find that specific post.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51567962] Where did i say that again becuase i am unable to find that specific post.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51562193]He is not even in office yet and besides what is going to do round up all the climate scientists in the US and destroy there data in one big bon fire? Maybe he will just cut subsidies for green tech so it will be forced to become more competitive and not need any subsidies to stay a float. I swear all this fear mongering regarding Trump and what he might to do is just getting ridiculous.[/QUOTE] Your very first post in this thread? Saying all this is fear mongering, point out that Trump isn't even in office yet like that matters and saying maybe he wil "just" cut subsidies so that they'll be more competitive like it's not big deal and wouldn't horribly cripple research. All this doesn't even touch on the legitimate concern that Trump likely will support oil and gas in favor of renewable energy which further goes to show that he probably will not take any measures to curb pollution and certainly not the extreme measures we increasingly need at this point.

[QUOTE=Tinter;51567992]Your very first post in this thread? Saying all this is fear mongering, point out that Trump isn't even in office yet like that matters and saying maybe he wil "just" cut subsidies so that they'll be more competitive like it's not big deal and wouldn't horribly cripple research. All this doesn't even touch on the legitimate concern that Trump likely will support oil and gas in favor of renewable energy which further goes to show that he probably will not take any measures to curb pollution and certainly not the extreme measures we increasingly need at this point.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should have read further than that. [QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51563791]I was not advocating for subsidies to be cut i was merely giving a a example of what Trump might do.[/QUOTE] It is not my opinion that subsidies need to be cut it is a example of what he might do.

My point wasn't that cutting subsidies is a terrible idea, which I think it is. My point is that there's a huge concern and your posts are all trying to say that people's fears are unfounded. Cutting subsidies would also have big impacts, but you said "just" cut subsidies.

[QUOTE=Tinter;51568024]My point wasn't that cutting subsidies is a terrible idea, which I think it is. My point is that there's a huge concern and your posts are all trying to say that people's fears are unfounded. Cutting subsidies would also have big impacts, but you said "just" cut subsidies.[/QUOTE] In my opinion they are as most of these concerns are inflated by a broader anti Trump narrative that is being pushed. So i think one should take these concerns with a bucket of salt.

[QUOTE=LZTYBRN;51567886]I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with this comment, denying climate change will not lead to scientific progression[/QUOTE] It will on the off chance that something about climate change turns out to be false. Scientific knowledge needs constant scrutiny to work as a functional system. That does not mean people should put their fingers in their ears and sing lalalalala though, but your comment before was nonfactual to say the least.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51568252]It will on the off chance that something about climate change turns out to be false. Scientific knowledge needs constant scrutiny to work as a functional system. That does not mean people should put their fingers in their ears and sing lalalalala though, but your comment before was nonfactual to say the least.[/QUOTE] Scrutiny isn't assuming entire arguments written by countless scientific papers all independent of one another are completely false without any evidence of your own. You need a basis and some evidence to build upon to legitimately - and scientifically - scrutinize a theory as possibly false, not say "well, there's a chance they could be wrong" for no apparent reason. [editline]22nd December 2016[/editline] Scrutiny is peer reviewing, not putting fingers in their ears and sing lalalalala when the scientific paper will hurt their bottom dollar of their multi-billion dollar company.

[QUOTE=TheNukeNL;51567962]Since when is calling others hysterical and calling there reaction pathetic tone policing? I only expressed my opinion and which include a ask for calm but not for any form of silencing. Oh how tolerant of him. Just for a moment i thought that was his really argument. Where did i say that again becuase i am unable to find that specific post.[/QUOTE] Well that's a conveniently simple set of posts you decided to reply to, the sarcastic comment and the simple insults. How about maybe responding to the actual counter arguments to your actual statements?

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51568252]It will on the off chance that something about climate change turns out to be false. Scientific knowledge needs constant scrutiny to work as a functional system. That does not mean people should put their fingers in their ears and sing lalalalala though, but your comment before was nonfactual to say the least.[/QUOTE] We should totally be open to investigations and scrutinize evidence when things don't work as predicted. Climate scientists are currently doing this. Gutting the EPA and issuing fossil fuel companies carte blanche isn't being open to new ideas. It's willful ignorance to the evidence we've already gathered.

[QUOTE=Blizzerd;51567877]Thats the essence of scientific progression... what are you talking about[/QUOTE] Denying is different from disproving. Denial takes no evidence or justification, you just say "Nah I don't believe you". Science is making hypotheses based off observations, not the other way around. If you [I]discovered[/I] evidence that climate change wasn't real, [I]then[/I] you can start making that claim.