Science is a collective activity. Programs that *make a difference* at a policy-making level rely on hundreds of programs that do pure science, out of public sight, except in places like this. So yes, the axing of pure research programs that "make no difference" will do irreparable harm.
Thats not an argument that refutes anything I wrote.
Our current BAU policies are the ones doing irreparable harm to our climate. Dismantling research will harm science somewhat, but not at the extent that some are suggesting, and wont make our current BAU policies significantly worse. Trump will never match Obama's fossil fuel production growth, nor will he succeed in deploying enough coal plants to come close to the nearly equal emissions from Obama's gas boom and their leaking fracking wells/pipes. Theres actually a very good chance that fossil fuel production growth will slow down under Trump because we've already grown production so much, lol.
TeaPotty, that's really not right.
I work in risk management in the oil & gas industry. Energy production decisions are taken ten, twenty or fifty years out. The lead time to peak production for an oilfield can easily be a decade, and in some cases, such as offshore, twenty years or longer. Most (maybe all?) of the oilfields included in those numbers have been live since *before* Obama, and perhaps before either Clinton or Bush.
Their specific output is the result of industrial decisions taken entirely outside the realm of government or politics. The tax incentives that made oil & gas so profitable in the United States have been in place since the Reagan years. The only way the government can reduce output is by reducing those tax incentives
So you're saying that oil production will decrease under Trump because of Obama's actions? Did Reagan not effect production in his term?
This story you're telling is just that - thats not how politics works. A president can push various industries through various levers and executive policies. If you're going to be stubborn and insist otherwise, I will not continue discussion with such sophomoric analysis wasting my time and others.
The fossil fuel industry knew it invested wisely when it poured money on establishment Dems, most notably Obama & Hillary.
Your fervour to exonerate one side is unhelpful. I say that as a fiscal conservative.
1) You're proving again that you don't seem to remember what you read. I've said time and time again the only way significant climate action will occur is through revolution, and not through either establishment parties.
I've explained that we have irrefutable evidence from leaks of both establishment parties working together against the public's wishes. Leaks from Snowden, Wikileaks, and Manning have been verified by checksum, meaning its pointless to argue against their authenticity. We even have a study from Princeton proving from over 30 years of political data that the major factor in whether a bill passes or not is support of the 1%, regardless of what the public wants. We just had a Dem primary where the most significant Climate candidate (Bernie Sanders) ever led the largest uprising here since the American Revolution, and in return was blacklisted and later smeared by the Dem party in collusion with the media. Did you not see all the emails to journalists telling them what narrative to push in the news? The party spent millions on online trolls laughing at Progressives' agenda, more than they spent on outreach to any minority group. They threw money at violent actors to storm Trump & Bernie rallies just so they can push negative headlines and claim those ppl were candidate supporters. Money was even funneled through state parties so Hillary could circumvent individual donation limits, since most of her money cam from wealthy ppl and industries. Bernie received more contributions than any candidate in any election in American history, even more than Obama's 2008 massive general election campaign. When all that failed the primary had to be rigged for Hillary to win, even as polls showed her likely to lose to Trump.
Dems lose bc Progressives/Leftists and much of the climate movement punished the party for what has clearly become an abusive relationship. Its time to grow a spine and stop kissing the ass of evil people. When it was clear in the primary that we had the majority power, there was such a strong feeling of hope for us Millennial's future. You would actually hear ppl talk about it, we finally had a candidate we absolutely knew would push as hard as he could to cut emissions urgently. There was absolutely no hope with Hillary, who would have undoubtedly maintained the same BAU climate path as Obama, and told her 1% pals that ppl who want to cut carbon should "get a life".
2) You're a fiscal conservative? No wonder you're fine with Obama fucking over the working ppl who voted for him.
I agree based upon what you have written in several posts.
However I would much prefer the CC research programs and environmental protection rules stay and are reinforced rather than dismantled.
Agreed, I wish Bernie Sanders was president now too. My point was more that we already were ignoring the research, with the assistance of establishment scientists.
Tea Potty, once again I agree with most of what you say. However I invite you to examine these points.
1. Up until recently, if you even mentioned that climate change will have consequences in our lifetimes you would have gain the scorn of any serious scientist. What the scientist told Obama was that temp would rise by 2C in a century, the arctic will last until 2070. So Obama invested in pure research as if we had time. Sure there was risk for us but it would be perfectly manageable for now. Right now that doesn't seem to be the case, but in 2008 that was the best science.
We knew by 2008 that we had much bigger problems than 2C, and that we were running out of time.
Obama didn't bring about any surge in climate science. History will not be so kind to him because his direct actions speak for themselves. James Hansen said about Obama's Paris Climate Agreement
- Obama is not proposing the action required for the essential change in energy policy direction
- How can such miserable failure of political leadership be explained
- Get ready for the great deceit and hypocrisy planned for December in Paris
- Negotiators do not want the global leaders to look like fools again, as they did in Copenhagen. They are determined to have leaders clap each other on the back and declare the Paris climate negotiations a success.
- They express optimism on the Paris summit, citing an agreement of the U.S. and China to work together to develop carbon capture and storage (CCS). That spin is so gross, it is best described as unadulterated 100% pure bullshit.
- I am only pointing out the dishonest spin that is being put on total failure to address the fundamental issue.
- I have suggested, asked, or begged lawmakers, in more nations and states than I can remember, to consider a simple, honest, rising carbon fee with all funds distributed to legal residents... Instead legislation is proposed by liberal governments who want funds for bigger government or programs such as renewable energy subsidies. A carbon tax is hidden in “cap-and-trade-with-offsets”, yielding higher energy prices, more government controls, and a burden on the public and businesses. The proposed bill in the United States (Waxman/Markey) included 3500 pages of giveaways to every lobbyist who could raise his arm to write a paragraph that was then stapled into the bill.
- “(Many have said) we need a carbon price and (investment) would be so much easier with a carbon price,” Figueres said, “but life is much more complex than that.” Baloney. A flat carbon fee is too complex? Figueres deserves our respect and thanks for hard work, but we cannot let politeness damage the future of our planet and loved ones.
- The danger that Paris may mimic Kyoto is heightened by the “guard rail” concept, which allows governments to promise future emission reductions rather than set up a framework that fosters rapid emissions reductions.
- note that his signature victory (EPA regulations that reduce domestic emissions), assuming that it stands up in court, amounts to only several percent of U.S. emissions
- Obama’s climate legacy, on his present course, will be worse than a miserable failure
- Watch what happens in Paris carefully to see if all that the leaders do is sign off on the pap that UN bureaucrats are putting together, indulgences and promises to reduce future emissions, and then clap each other on the back and declare success.
In that case President Obama will have sold our children, and theirs, down the river.
3. To make matter worse, traitor congressmen both dems and reps, did not allow him to govern, mostly because he is black with a muslim name and that scared the shit out of xenophobes. Pretty much all of Obama's accomplishments come from executive action
Welcome to political theater. Most of this noise was pushed by the establishment of both parties to provide cover for some incredibly ugly policies they wanted. Every negotiation with Republicans started with Obama first offerting THEIR
position on a silver platter. Then the Republicans would cry that he's a LEFTIST COMMUNIST & throw a tantrum until he moved further and further and further right. If you follow politics down to the nitty gritty ugly procedures with wierd names in congress like C-SPAN, this is what you saw. Obama signed off on really really really bad bills, willingly. Obama got a lot done with the Republican majority congress he fought for, and TPP was a love affair where both parties were practically hugging in public from joy of their success. Among a nearly endless list of Wall-St/Banker Christmas wishes,TPP also directly prevents a populist uprising from properly addressing Climate Change
, namely through a secret international business tribunal (court) not accountable to the public.
Under Obama we DOUBLED fossil fuel production. Our government has been hostile and violent to any uprisings and protests, like Keystone Pipeline, Dakota Access Pipeline, Occupy, Black Lives Matters, and the current Left huge uprising sparked by Bernie Sanders. His PR-pushed "good" actions were inadequate at best.
There is no need to make excuses for any man or party who uses their power to make our crisis worse, which he undeniably has.