Trump to eliminate climate change research.

[jdallen]

I curse the hubris. I curse the denial. I curse the narcissism.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research

[budmantis]

I'll second that!

[Eli81]

Is there even such thing as "politicized science"? Isn't there just... science?

Ugh, it's going to be a long and dark 4 years. And if this clown gets 8 years? LOL.

*shudder*

[Sigmetnow]

"Show me a person worried about ‘politicizing science’ and I’ll show you someone politicizing science.
The surest way to ACTUALLY politicize science is to put an instrument in someone’s hand and then tell them where they CAN’T look."
https://twitter.com/sarcasticrover/status/801313592624693248

Bill McKibben:  Trump's plan to end NASA climate research is roughly equivalent to tossing out all the smoke detectors in your house
https://twitter.com/billmckibben/status/801506095000944640

Kees van der Leun:  Stopping climate research now is like spraypainting the windshield while driving a car down a dangerous winding road through the mountains.
https://twitter.com/sustainable2050/status/801499362371244033

[TeaPotty]

I dont support Trump at all, but I am pretty disgusted with this outrage. Good fucking morning ppl.

Where were you when Liberals rigged the primary against a real Leftist, Bernie Sanders, who was a sure bet against Trump and a climate hawk? He was our last great hope, and those with power in the climate movement mostly stayed quiet.

Where was the outrage the past 8 years over the fact that carbon emissions are STILL accelerating and we are STILL on the worse case path (BAU)? Where was the outrage at Obama for making USA the #1 oil producer, sent Hillary to export fracking around the world, and underhanded the entire Paris Climate Agreement?

I see ppl on a crusade to defend renewables, as if they are sufficient or have been funded by anything close to the same scale which fossil fuels are. I see ppl already propagating the ridiculous Liberal talking points that Climate Change will be Trump's fault, as if the ship hasn't long past sailed at stopping CC?

Other than Professor James Hansen and several others, most of those in the scientific establishment and Dem party cheered on as we congratulated ourselves on wasting more time in style.

In fact, Hillary was promising to do even less than Obama to fight CC, and ppl made fools of themselves defending her dirty history of FF peddling & donations. What about her support for TPP, which effectively prevents us from fighting Climate Change? At least maybe Trump stays true to his word and kills the TPP as promised, and thats a big Climate victory.

Hillary is a crook, as proven by Wikileaks info released on her. Did you read the speech where she told Wall St that Climate Activists pushing to stop burning of carbon should "get a life"??

Sure, Trump is an asshole and bigot (I'm dark-skinned btw), but I find it quite amusing that NOW so many ppl are outraged, at a president who hasn't even taken office yet? Sure, he's an asshole and climate denier, but the math shows not much will change in our carbon emissions for better of worse. We are currently STILL on the worst case path, and will remain so during Trump's term just like with Obama or would have been with Hillary.

I will keep doing my part to fight for change, but I really do expect the worst. Both parties are climate deniers, including Liberals. Most of the Climate movement is in denial, most scientists are in denial. Worse, Liberals are like a quack doctor informing their patient his cancer is in remission, when its not. Other than some real Leftists, there is a complete inability to grasp just how far fucked we are and how urgently action is needed.

Welp, its been nice guys.

[werther]

Lighten up, TP.
Like you suggest, it all doesn't matter much. At least, for the outcome. Even Bernie would probably have banged against the wall. Everyone is a pawn in the great reel down now. Maybe Trump will start investing in a Mars-project. Will be fun to witness. In it's utter uselessness.

[Bruce Steele]

Politics is the art of the possible and considering the current situation I would say the odds favor more progress on climate change mitigation from China than the U.S.  I said on another thread that China can take the moral high ground on climate change and do the U.S. economic damage at the same time. I am not alone in that line of reasoning .


http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-climatechange-idUSL1N1DC0K1


So rather than raging against the machine maybe we should be trying to figure out how to help China.
Sending some sort of message to the new U.S. climate delegation that U.S. scientists might prefer to help China achieve it's new place as the worlds leader on climate mitigation would have to send a shudder through those cold dark veins.

[ghoti]

Instead of freaking out people should think back to the Bush era. This is just a repeat. Sure it is bad but it is the same old same old. This is standard GOP.

For a reminder:
http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2016/11/plus-ca-change-plus-cest-la-meme-chose.html

[Bruce Steele]

Ghoti,  Neither party had control of congress during G.W. Bush's two terms. This is different with both houses and soon the Supreme Court in the control of conservatives.

[budmantis]

Ghoti,  Neither party had control of congress during G.W. Bush's two terms. This is different with both houses and soon the Supreme Court in the control of conservatives.

When W started his first term in office, the Senate was controlled by the Republicans by a very slim margin. I believe it was 50/50 with V.P. Cheney being the tie breaker. Sometime during those first two years, Sen, Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched parties and became an independent but caucused with the Democrats, giving them temporary control of the Senate. During the mid-term elections in  2002, the Republicans regained control of the Senate until the 2006 mid-term elections.

The House of Rep's was controlled by the Republicans for the first six years of W's presidency. The Democrats assumed control after the 2006 mid-term elections. Therefore, during the last two years of W's presidency, the Democrats were in control of both houses of Congress, while the Republicans were in control of both houses for all but a short time during the first six years.

[TeaPotty]

Stop pretending that the establishment Dems are better on Climate Action - math doesn't agree with you. Obama devoted himself to TPP (prevents climate action), to making America the #1 oils producer, to fracking the shit out of our kids, to building record numbers of new pipelines, to undermining the Paris Agreement, etc. Plenty more examples where Obama freely acted like a climate denier on his own accord. Not once did he or Hillary seriously even entertain the idea of stopping carbon emissions.

All the same, ppl defending Obama on climate action are climate change deniers.

[Archimid]

Stop pretending that the establishment Dems are better on Climate Action - math doesn't agree with you.

Climate inaction > Action against climate change research. The math works out

Remember the president is not the king, he is there to execute legislation. Real climate action must come through comprehensive legislation not executive action. It is true that Obama continued oil exploration and expanded fracking, but a great part of his mandate is to deal with the Economy. Since legislation was never passed to make the necesary changes to prop up the economy using renewables, everything he did was by executive action. I think if the IPCC and climate scientist would have not taken the least drama approach and if Obama didn't have such a racist hostile congress, he would have done more.

Clinton was planning to do even less than Obama. I can tell because she wasn't even present at the Climate change centered rally. She didn't even mention CC in the debates. She posted on her site some plans ripped off from Sanders to pander, not to act on it. No, she was all the way for business as usual, but research would have continued.


But what the republicans are trying to do is completely different. The want to scrap, classify and hide all evidence of climate change. They are taking the bury their head in the sand approach to climate change. They wouldn't mind because they think some magical power is what sustains the world and their lives. They think humans are above and beyond nature.

[Eli81]

I keep trying to comfort myself with thoughts of "Dubya wasn't that bad... the world continued on...".

But this just feels different. I do, of course, expect the world to continue on - but at what cost? We should have started the renewables journey 40 years ago.

The people he's putting into these offices of power are frankly nearly as frightening as Trump himself, but when you add them all together it's just downright petrifying. This Ebell guy may as well be our satan, The Anti-Earth. 

Jeff Sessons as Attorney General... And this Devos lady for education secretary...   

Welcome to the United States of the Deep South.

[budmantis]

Stop pretending that the establishment Dems are better on Climate Action - math doesn't agree with you.

All the same, ppl defending Obama on climate action are climate change deniers.

Democrats are better with climate change issues. How much better is open to debate. Remember, for most of the last six years the Republicans have had majorities in both houses of Congress. The only chance to accomplish anything was by Executive action, which Obama was heavily criticized for doing. I think Obama did a good job overall, especially with the headwinds he was facing, and I most definitely am not a climate change denier.

[budmantis]

Jeff Sessons as Attorney General... And this Devos lady for education secretary...   

Welcome to the United States of the Deep South.

That's a lot of emojis Eli! Maybe we'll have to think up a few more to describe our reactions to Trump's future cabinet appointments.

[Sigmetnow]

That would be a huge mistake,” said Carson, noting that much more research needs to be done on polar tipping points before we can understand the true dangers, let alone hope to tackle them. “It would be like ripping out the aeroplane’s cockpit instruments while you are in mid-flight.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/25/arctic-ice-melt-trigger-uncontrollable-climate-change-global-level

[OrganicSu]

Lighten up, TP.

If your intention is to communicate "don't worry about the small shit and by the way, it's all small shit" then ok. But do you mean something more like "shush, not so loud. Everyone is sleeping".

Maybe Trump will start investing in a Mars-project. Will be fun to witness. In it's utter uselessness.

Sorry, but not it will not be fun. Diaster porn in all it's formats, including "we're cooked here so let's go to Mars" is not fun. I'm not LOL. I'm scarred.

[TeaPotty]

Climate inaction > Action against climate change research. The math works out

Thats fair, but I'm not outraged about it either. We're fucked either way by now. At some point, this has to be fully grasped. Trump literally cant make it much worse.

 The loss of data is the worst part, but I'm sure other countries will continue to do better and probably make up for it. I'm rather happy the scientists are getting fired, they deserve it.

Most of our top scientists keep pretty quiet (not all of them of course, thankfully). Imagine what effect they could have had on the public if they tried through some united body or alliance, formally addressing humanity in every language. Instead, most of them stood aside as our politicians never failed to miss an opportunity to act or acknowledge its urgency or ultimate consequences.

Assholes like Gavin Schmidt are religious anti-alarmist, despite their full admission that the research is actually alarming. Gavin even patronized climate realists, by reducing us to a caricature yelling "we're fucked, we're fucked", and then ridiculing it (I believe its in an interview with Esquire). Worse, the anti-alarmist work behind the scenes to undermine the "alarmists" for violating their precious faith of objectivity.

Throw these bums out, they are part of the problem as far as I'm concerned. They sure as hell aren't serving the public.

Remember the president is not the king, he is there to execute legislation. Real climate action must come through comprehensive legislation not executive action

Oh please, spare me. I followed almost every step Obama & congress took during his term, and he is a crook. He never put any serious effort at all into actually improving the economy for working ppl or fighting climate change. He'd always started negotiating by first adopting the Republicans' position, to which they'd respond in scripted outrage. It made for some lovely political theater, but the truth is Obama and the Repubs got a lot done together, all bad for our country. His most aggressive political efforts were on TPP, against his own base and voters. His pet TPP literally seeks to submit all countries in the agreement to the ruling of a secret international business tribunal, and specifically undermines our future ability to fight climate change (among many other horrible things).

It is true that Obama continued oil exploration and expanded fracking, but a great part of his mandate is to deal with the Economy.

So, he didnt do anything significant to fight climate change, and nothing significant to improve the economy. Gotcha.

Since legislation was never passed to make the necessary changes to prop up the economy using renewables

Say what? Renewables weren't then and can't now "prop up the economy". Sure, we really need efforts beyond WW2-scale, but thats a different kind of economy.

I think if the IPCC and climate scientist would have not taken the least drama approach and if Obama didn't have such a racist hostile congress, he would have done more.

Nah. The politicians make sure IPCC is corrupt to the core. Obama & Hillary had their hands in really ruining the Paris agreement. Also, the opposition to Obama is all theater, an excuse for both parties to not actually act in the interest of the public. Again, much was accomplished legislatively these past 8 years, and most of it was very very bad for us.


In the future, our kids will wonder why everyone kissed this asshole's ass. He is a murderer, a 1% pillager, and a climate menace - thats his legacy. Oh, and he gave wonderful speeches.

[TeaPotty]

I keep trying to comfort myself with thoughts of "Dubya wasn't that bad... the world continued on...".

Yeah, its gonna be bad. On one hand, he's really not much worse than George W Bush, and on the other Obama wasn't really much better than Bush. Ultimately, nobody is to blame more than the establishment Dems, who enabled all the worst Republican actions.

Democrats are better with climate change issues. How much better is open to debate.

Sorry, but math disagrees with you. Sure, the Neoliberals talk better, but those globalists have proven that they literally don't care much. They believe that a global free-market will magically warp our technology forward and solve climate change. They believe it so much, they based all the budget math in the Paris agreement on it (CCS) somehow magically existing in the future and saving our sorry asses. Then we have all the "Progressives" in branding only, who really are also Neoliberals, and sometimes conservatives. Finally, the few real Progressives (read: Leftists) are the real deal, but they have no power, and the party makes sure of it.

The Dem establishment's #1 priority is undermining the Progressive movement and Progressive ideas. This has been true for decades, and is ultimately what enabled Republicans most of wall: denying the public a working-ppl-party to vote for.

Remember, for most of the last six years the Republicans have had majorities in both houses of Congress. The only chance to accomplish anything was by Executive action.

Sorry, but that sounds like willful denial. Obama & the Republicans got much done together. Leaks from whistleblowers like Snowden & Wikileaks have proven to us that he is an evil man like most politicians before him, with bad intentions for working-ppl. Good ppl dont undermine Climate Agreements - even Professor James Hansen described it all as "bullshit" and "selling our kids down the river". Good ppl dont drone innocent citizens around the world (Obama bombed more countries than Bush too). Good ppl dont FRACK and poison families around the country (and thanx to Hillary's shilling, the world). The list is endless, and he is not a good man.

Its unfortunate so many enjoy defending him in full tribalist identity politics, it just makes me sad that ppl are so uninformed. True, his tongue is slicker than most, and our media has become a circus: the 1% drive their narrative by mixing trivial news with propaganda and non-news distractions to keep the public from noticing the world collapsing around them for as long as possible.

[budmantis]

Tea Potty:

I laid out the political landscape of the last eight years. In your idealism, you can certainly choose to ignore the facts. Rarely is anything black and white in this world, there's usually a large grey area.

If you wish to continue your incendiary rhetoric, go ahead. The real world is far more complicated and there are no easy answers.

[budmantis]

Maybe Trump will start investing in a Mars-project. Will be fun to witness. In it's utter uselessness.

Sorry, but not it will not be fun. Diaster porn in all it's formats, including "we're cooked here so let's go to Mars" is not fun. I'm not LOL. I'm scarred.

Organic Su: I guess you don't see irony when it's staring right at you! Don't mean to be picky, but I think you're "scared", not "scarred". Having Trump as Pres. elect is scary, so is the state of the Arctic.

[TeaPotty]

Tea Potty:

I laid out the political landscape of the last eight years. In your idealism, you can certainly choose to ignore the facts. Rarely is anything black and white in this world, there's usually a large grey area.

If you wish to continue your incendiary rhetoric, go ahead. The real world is far more complicated and there are no easy answers.

No, what you call the "real world" is theater. You laid out Dem party talking points, and I pointed out the absolute statistical insignificance in raw numbers of any action taken on climate change. Carbon emissions are STILL accelerating (yet to even slow) - we're still on worse-case path. Worse, Obama did more to contribute to climate change than his predecessor.  Saudi America, fracking, TPP, undermining the Paris Climate agreement, global drone-bombing thousands of innocents... these are his legacy, all done by him without any Repubs to intervene. Dems used Climate Change the way a bullfighter uses his red cape, for votes.

I would love some gray area, but we are far into Black. Demanding immediate action is not idealist in the slightest. Without immediate urgent alien-invasion-scale climate action, we are looking more and more likely to pass 4C of climate change within a Millennial's lifetime. That means USA ceases to exist as a country, and we can only hope what % of humanity remaining  find  a new area suitable for human life on an Earth with a climate foreign to any human in history!

But whatever, I'm not even angry anymore. If you prefer denial, go ahead (not beings sarcastic). You are far from the only one, so believe me you won't even have to feel guilty in the future.

[LRC1962]

As a Canadian I can sadly state that we have been there seen it and it could be really bad.
The right wing under Harper by the end had almost total control over anything that any scientist that got federal money wrote or said. That included any research publication. Result. Canada lost a lot of scientist especially in the Arctic climate research area which before Harper was at the forefront, now we lag behind almost everyone. Part two 'TARSANDS'. The world is going to pay dearly for what we have done there for many generations. Part three was he was a big part in the failure of several international climate conventions.
To think that Congress and Senate will control Trump. Forget it. Too many owe their wins and/or margin of wins to his campaign and his ability to engage the GOP core. They will do whatever Trump tells them to do.
Lastly the effect that like mind politicians throughout the world knowing that it is possible to win against all odds. The general populations around the world are in the mood for big change and that means getting rid of all international agreements. As for the argument that nations still have to abide by those agreements? Easy path is just ignore them. In the end any penalties are toothless. Even the WTO penalties for the most part can be ignored without any real damage.
When the Paris agreement was signed I had my doubts as to its effectiveness, because what I saw happening in Canada when a climate denialist government gained control and what it is capable of doing. China and India will lead the pact for climate change in the short term because environmental issues demand it. As soon as that pressure is off, unless real economic benefits are shown, it will return to BAU. Real changes will only happen once the major world cities start getting flooded, by then things will be really bad.

[Archimid]

...

I mostly agree with you and share your feelings. By treating climate change as a problem for next generations we have setup ourselves for failure.

ON Obama, I was highly skeptical of him but then I saw the racist campaign that everybody waged on him.  I also noticed how he reacted to it. He ignored all the blatant racism and tried to bring people together. To try to reach his opponents he moved his positions to the right to such an extent that lost those on the left. At that point I decided to support him.

To this day he still is trying to reach over the other side and attempt civility and honor even with such and honorless racist like Trump.  It worked for MLK, it worked with Ghandi, but it didn't work with him. To the contrary. His attempts at bipartisanship were taken advantage off. They even stole a supreme court nomination from him.


I understand your outrage. He didn't do nearly enough for climate change and he brought us fracking. I still forgive him because he faced hate  head on while keeping peace and inclusion. I still think of him as a great man, not for his accomplishments as president , but for the honorable way that he behaved.

Assholes like Gavin Schmidt are religious anti-alarmist, despite their full admission that the research is actually alarming. Gavin even patronized climate realists, by reducing us to a caricature yelling "we're fucked, we're fucked", and then ridiculing it (I believe its in an interview with Esquire). Worse, the anti-alarmist work behind the scenes to undermine the "alarmists" for violating their precious faith of objectivity.

Throw these bums out, they are part of the problem as far as I'm concerned. They sure as hell aren't serving the public.

When I first realized the grave peril we are  in I felt just like you. Many scientist are giving out a false sense of hope and security. That is counter productive in many levels.  But as I started getting more and more into the debate I realized that quite simply, people do not want to hear about climate change and it's consequences. They get scared, logic fails and wishful thinking takes over. If you want to find yourself alone, talk about climate change and it's consequences. Most people will tune out including scientists. The people that don't tune out become cynical and depressed.

What are scientist to do?  If they tell it like it is, people tune out and they lose all credibility. If they try to soften blows while still delivering the message, then they are delivering a false message, but at least they get some following. It is very easy to announce the end of the world as we know it in  a discussion board  or on reddit. IT is much more difficult to do that when your life and reputation are at stake.

Would I be as brave as them in their position? I like to think so but I would have to be in their position to find out. I sure have learned a lot about climate change from Schmidt and others, and without their input I would be blind about climate change. I disagree with their strategy, but I have  seen what the opposite does. Wadhams and McPherson had been made pariahs. Scientists everywhere dismiss their claims as impossible even as the claims of both keep gaining credibility as the world warms.

Say what? Renewables weren't then and can't now "prop up the economy". Sure, we really need efforts beyond WW2-scale, but thats a different kind of economy.

You are right. The transition to a non emitting economy will not be a propping up of the economy but a paradigm shift.




Will Trump be better? I think it will. He is a mediocre millionaire. The only reason he has the money he has is his willingness to lie and take from others without a conscious. His knowledge of the law and his privileged position as a white millionaire, probably high ranking KKK member, has allowed him to exploit everyone and get away with it.

That is not going to work at the presidency level. He will make horrible blunders in both domestic and foreign policy that will bring down the US and world economy to its knees, probably get is into wars. BY sheer economic contraction, he will reduce CO2 emissions. The cost will be horrible, but I think our chances to bring emissions down to manageable levels are better than ever.

[budmantis]

Democrats are better with climate change issues. How much better is open to debate.

Tea Potty: My first response to your post dated 11/26 started with the sentences quoted above. Democrats are better on climate change because they at least acknowledge that a problem exists. Beyond that, there is plenty of room for criticism.

Democrats have failed to make any measureable change with regards to AGW. OTOH, if the U.S. had a republican president along with a republican controlled Congress for the last eight years, we would have been much worse off.

There's more I'd like to add, but I want to give further thought to what you said in your last post before commenting further.

[Neven]

Teapotty, I understand what you mean, but try not to refer to people like Gavin Schmidt like you did. It's undeserved, even if everything you say is true.

[budmantis]

There's more I'd like to add, but I want to give further thought to what you said in your last post before commenting further.

Tea Potty:

Considering the fact that Republicans controlled both houses of Congress for most of the last six years, did you realistically expect Obama and the Democrats to enact climate change legislation? In your view, what do you think they could have done differently?

Back in 2009 and 2010, with majorities in both houses, including a filibuster proof majority in the Senate for a short time, they were barely able to pass the Affordable Care Act. In the U.S., the only way to accomplish anything is through bi-partisanship and the Republicans have been anything but bi-partisan. If you recall, the Affordable Care Act passed without one Republican vote.

I wish that there were more people like you in our country because as long as the electorate continues to vote climate deniers into office, little will be accomplished in solving the climate change problem.

It's easy to criticize the Democrats for their inaction, and I agree with some of your assertions. What do you think they could have done differently over the past eight years that could realistically have made a difference?

[ChasingIce]

WHOA...

The proposal is to put NASA on a track for Space Exploration instead of Climate Change.  I didn't see anything about abandoning USGCRP, NOAA, the NSF, the DOE's work regarding Climate Research, or a host of other money's ear-marked for Climate Research at the University level. 
 

 

[ritter]

WHOA...

The proposal is to put NASA on a track for Space Exploration instead of Climate Change.  I didn't see anything about abandoning USGCRP, NOAA, the NSF, the DOE's work regarding Climate Research, or a host of other money's ear-marked for Climate Research at the University level.

So... We'll just chop off one finger. You've got 9 more. 

[TeaPotty]

Teapotty, I understand what you mean, but try not to refer to people like Gavin Schmidt like you did. It's undeserved, even if everything you say is true.

You know I have much respect for you Neven. But I disagree with you. Gavin Schmidt and establishment scientists like him have a clear agenda: anti-alarmism.

What can you say about a scientist who ridicules alarmists at a time when we know are really really fucked. He is practically trolling us. Do you think history will look kindly on his behavior, at a time when urgent action was still able to save our climate?

I think you just haven't gotten to where I have yet. I'm 33 with a 10 month old daughter, how else am I supposed to feel?

[budmantis]

 I'm 33 with a 10 month old daughter, how else am I supposed to feel?

I've read your posts under the conservative scientists thread and I think I have a better understanding of your point of view. You're rocking the boat, and we are at a point where we need more boat rockers. Good for you! My question is how do we get from the status quo to where substantial change becomes a reality as opposed to fantasy? 

[TeaPotty]

 I'm 33 with a 10 month old daughter, how else am I supposed to feel?

I've read your posts under the conservative scientists thread and I think I have a better understanding of your point of view. You're rocking the boat, and we are at a point where we need more boat rockers. Good for you! My question is how do we get from the status quo to where substantial change becomes a reality as opposed to fantasy?

Thank you for seeing my point of view. I wish I knew the magic answer buddy. But I believe we must start by learning from past mistakes is necessary.

1) Climate Optimism fails to bring together a movement strong enough, by design. The 1% use their strings to steer the climate movement this direction in order for it to fail - it minimizes the influence it has on the voting public. The media occasionally covers important climate news, flashing sensationalized headlines for one news cycle before washing it over quickly with other sensationalized headlines from anything they can find to throw at their audience to keep them distracted.

2) Dont be afraid to upset or jarr ppl out of their bubble of denial. Forget the MSM's (mainsteam-media) narrative propaganda peddling. They play this game to keep ppl arguing about narrative rather than action. Look at how their election narrative blew up in their face, completely out of touch.

3) Its time to stop playing nice with our politicians. The overwhelming majority of them dont serve us, they dont mean us well, and they dont care how the consequences affect us.

4) To change our system, we must fight it. We must strip the power out those that are part of the system. Bernie Sanders sparked the emergence of the largest grassroots movement in American history. The establishment is busy now trying to destroy it from the inside and out, but if it survives these 4 years, it has potential to sweep in a good candidate - if we can find one by then. The Democratic Party must be taken over by Leftists/Progressives who will serve the working class again, and not just use social issues to tag-team it with Republicans in splitting up voters.

[Pmt111500]

He probably thinks he can get it cheaper from some third world country.

[ChasingIce]

So... We'll just chop off one finger. You've got 9 more. 

History of NASA
"An Act to provide for research into the problems of flight within and outside the Earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes." With this simple preamble, the Congress and the President of the United States created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on October 1, 1958.


 

[Seumas]

So NASA can study the greenhouse effect on Venus, or on Mars, or even the anti-greenhouse effect on Titan. But they better not look at Earth! Uh uh, no peeking!

[ritter]

So... We'll just chop off one finger. You've got 9 more. 

History of NASA
"An Act to provide for research into the problems of flight within and outside the Earth's atmosphere, and for other purposes." With this simple preamble, the Congress and the President of the United States created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on October 1, 1958.

Yup. However, I believe NASA has been rather crucial to getting eyes in the sky (satellites) to better observe and understand climate change. Big shoes to fill there. My point is, we don't have enough resources studying the problem currently. Eliminating one of those resources is moving in the wrong direction at this critical junction. You are free to disagree with me. 

[ChasingIce]

So NASA can study the greenhouse effect on Venus, or on Mars, or even the anti-greenhouse effect on Titan. But they better not look at Earth! Uh uh, no peeking!

maybe we should have the Border Patrol study Climate Change...  They're not very busy.

[Neven]

I think you just haven't gotten to where I have yet. I'm 33 with a 10 month old daughter, how else am I supposed to feel?

Either it is that I haven't gotten to where you are yet, or you haven't gotten to where I have yet. 

10 years ago is was your age, with a slightly older daughter, and I was very angry at the time as well. The anger will get less as the understanding grows. Or maybe not less, but focused differently.

[ritter]

So NASA can study the greenhouse effect on Venus, or on Mars, or even the anti-greenhouse effect on Titan. But they better not look at Earth! Uh uh, no peeking!

maybe we should have the Border Patrol study Climate Change...  They're not very busy.

Really? 

[TeaPotty]

I think you just haven't gotten to where I have yet. I'm 33 with a 10 month old daughter, how else am I supposed to feel?

Either it is that I haven't gotten to where you are yet, or you haven't gotten to where I have yet. 

10 years ago is was your age, with a slightly older daughter, and I was very angry at the time as well. The anger will get less as the understanding grows. Or maybe not less, but focused differently.

I don't see how you can tell ppl that you are right for being less angry. It's even a bit insulting. We are under attack. Apathy is denial at worst,  or submissive acceptance at best. Billions of ppl are going to die, so nobody can justify telling others that anger isn't warranted at our impending anthropocene crisis.

And I understand our situation very well, far better than most of the public, especially thanks to many great minds on this forum. The math presented is solid and undeniable: we are fucked. There is no escaping the catastrophic consequences now, only a question of how much additional pressure we want to place on future humanity's neck.

Now, politics I have also studied for a long time now. A clusterfuck of corruption & collusion are the rules that govern our society. It's incredibly naive to think the system will change without a fight, just as history shows us. The longer ppl "play nice" with our politicians, the longer BAU continues. Those at the top are murderers, and those assisting them are accomplices. Yes, that includes establishment scientists who obey and keep quiet, it includes Democrats who praised Obama for his climate action (read:destruction), it includes the hippies who thought they will save the world through Veganism.

Our kids will be disgusted with the ppl alive at this time, especially at those in a position to do anything at all. I'm just already there. Do you think our descendents will also lack "understanding" as they suffer through their life of indignity?  So much could have been done, and all you hear from the older generation are excuses for why we cant save our future, why we can't get angry about it, and why we can't tell ppl that their kids are likely to die on a planet that can't even sustain 1/3 of our current population.

This generation is the WORST in human history, and that's how it will be rememebered. My anger is called Righteous Indignation, and I'm damn proud to be a human who's not asleep like the rest of the sheep awaiting their slaughter.

[AbruptSLR]

Per the linked open letter (& associated articles), more than 2,300 scientists are asking Trump to respect the integrity & independence of science:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/science-and-democracy/ucs-scientist-letter-to-trump-11-30-2016.pdf

&

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/30/22-nobel-prize-winners-urge-trump-to-respect-scientific-integrity-and-independence/?utm_term=.5a2023c123d3

&
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/1130/Scientists-to-Trump-Science-deserves-critical-role-in-future-of-United-States

[budmantis]

This generation is the WORST in human history, and that's how it will be rememebered. My anger is called Righteous Indignation, and I'm damn proud to be a human who's not asleep like the rest of the sheep awaiting their slaughter.

While I understand your point of view Tea Potty, I think you're carrying the argument too far. My generation, (the Baby Boomers), do have a lot to answer for. Maybe the best chance we had at really changing things was in the 70's. With the pressures of daily life, like staying employed and raising a family, most of us have had to make compromises that over time tend to blunt that ardor we once had. In retrospect, I believe we could have done far better

Neven, with his Blog and Forum, as well as lifestyle changes he's made to lower his family's carbon footprint, has done far more to change the paradigm than most. If you want to change the paradigm further, you will need to build consensus, lead by example and avoid alienating potential allies. Otherwise, you'll find yourself way out on a limb by yourself and you'll change nothing.

Be the boat rocker, but don't throw everyone overboard.

[Neven]

I don't see how you can tell ppl that you are right for being less angry. It's even a bit insulting. We are under attack. Apathy is denial at worst,  or submissive acceptance at best. Billions of ppl are going to die, so nobody can justify telling others that anger isn't warranted at our impending anthropocene crisis.

I didn't say less angry is necessarily better. I'm just saying that Righteous Indignation as a type of anger is contributing to the problem. To solve the problem you need to transition to another kind of anger, one that leaves room for compassion and an understanding of where other people's perspectives are coming from.

Apart from that, I agree with most of the stuff you're saying.

[budmantis]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2300-scientists-letter-donald-trump_us_583f2bcbe4b017f37fe238df

"2,300 Leading Scientists Send Trump A Clear Warning: We’re Watching You."

"An open letter signed by America’s top minds hopes to counter the influence of climate change deniers and oil execs."

[TeaPotty]

I don't see how you can tell ppl that you are right for being less angry. It's even a bit insulting. We are under attack. Apathy is denial at worst,  or submissive acceptance at best. Billions of ppl are going to die, so nobody can justify telling others that anger isn't warranted at our impending anthropocene crisis.

I didn't say less angry is necessarily better. I'm just saying that Righteous Indignation as a type of anger is contributing to the problem.

You've got to be kidding me. This doesnt make any sense at all. Where are "angry ppl" contributing to our climate crisis at all?

To solve the problem you need to transition to another kind of anger, one that leaves room for compassion and an understanding of where other people's perspectives are coming from.

I have plenty of compassion for humanity and individuals, and am a very spiritual person. That doesnt contradict that other ppl deserve to hear the facts that exist outside their bubble. My love for our human body is what spurs me to such extents of bombastic communication beyond what 's normally respectable in everyday matters, which aren't so catastrophically urgent.

Its not unlike a parent who gets angry at a child who is harming himself and refuses or cannot see the truth of it. These 1% children are killing us, and all we do with complacence is provide support or mere decoration to their system.

I think its time this whole fuckin movement gets fuckin angry, and stop playing the violins on the deck of the titanic. Otherwise WTF is the point? Show me where in this graph of CO2 emissions do we see this climate movement or renewables or any climate action to-date have ANY effect whatsoever? http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

[magnamentis]

I don't see how you can tell ppl that you are right for being less angry. It's even a bit insulting. We are under attack. Apathy is denial at worst,  or submissive acceptance at best. Billions of ppl are going to die, so nobody can justify telling others that anger isn't warranted at our impending anthropocene crisis.

I didn't say less angry is necessarily better. I'm just saying that Righteous Indignation as a type of anger is contributing to the problem.

You've got to be kidding me. This doesnt make any sense at all. Where are "angry ppl" contributing to our climate crisis at all?

To solve the problem you need to transition to another kind of anger, one that leaves room for compassion and an understanding of where other people's perspectives are coming from.

I have plenty of compassion for humanity and individuals, and am a very spiritual person. That doesnt contradict that other ppl deserve to hear the facts that exist outside their bubble. My love for our human body is what spurs me to such extents of bombastic communication beyond what 's normally respectable in everyday matters, which aren't so catastrophically urgent.

Its not unlike a parent who gets angry at a child who is harming himself and refuses or cannot see the truth of it. These 1% children are killing us, and all we do with complacence is provide support or mere decoration to their system.

I think its time this whole fuckin movement gets fuckin angry, and stop playing the violins on the deck of the titanic. Otherwise WTF is the point? Show me where in this graph of CO2 emissions do we see this climate movement or renewables or any climate action to-date have ANY effect whatsoever? http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/full.html

i've seen the word Righteous above quoted and that's exactly what overshadows the entire series of posts. wisdom is the word and anger never leads to anything than further and more problems.

thing is that this is a general problem of the youth but let me put it that way:

anyone who believes that he got it and especially only "he" got it automatically disqualifies at the very same instance and one can more or less ignore the rest and wait for the individual to grow up.

last but not least 33 years of age is barely above youth and by no means an indicator for extraordinary levels of experience and wisdom, one knows that only when heading to double or triple that age LOL and yes i'm a many times grandpa as one can guess haha...

let me say that this is the nicest way i'm capable to suggest to stop this ongoing use of heavy sub-level wording (like F...ing and the likes ) based on anger of course and exactly proving that anger of that kind has rarely a good outcome, we shall see.

[TeaPotty]

i've seen the word Righteous above quoted and that's exactly what overshadows the entire series of posts.

"Righteous Indignation - Righteous anger is typically a reactive emotion of anger over mistreatment, insult, or malice. It is akin to what is called the sense of injustice"

I hope this clarifies this up. Billions of ppl dying and living in misery is an injustice. It makes me angry, and its definitely not wrong to be. I hope it hurts you inside and makes you angry too.

wisdom is the word and anger never leads to anything than further and more problems.

That a nice mantra, but saying it doesnt make it true. Not showing anger doesnt necessarily lead to desirable results either.

anyone who believes that he got it and especially only "he" got it automatically disqualifies at the very same instance and one can more or less ignore the rest and wait for the individual to grow up.

Its called math, and its true whether ppl believe it in or not. Climate Action is still a myth, a PR campaign - there is no proof of any effect to-date, we're still on the worst case path. I'm not the "only one" either, as my conclusions are directly taken from great minds on this forum and other experienced scientists like Professor James Hansen.

I recognize your patronizing moralism as coming from someone who doesnt expect to live through a 2C or 3C Earth and beyond. Well, good for you!

last but not least 33 years of age is barely above youth and by no means an indicator for extraordinary levels of experience and wisdom, one knows that only when heading to double or triple that age LOL and yes i'm a many times grandpa as one can guess haha...

Your still attacking the messenger here. They aren't my conclusions, and they are rock solid.

let me say that this is the nicest way i'm capable to suggest to stop this ongoing use of heavy sub-level wording (like F...ing and the likes ) based on anger of course and exactly proving that anger of that kind has rarely a good outcome, we shall see.

I get it, you want me to get off your lawn. Its unpleasant when someone points out what this generation's legacy is.

[budmantis]

Nice post Magnamentis. Neven has founded and hosts the Forum and leads by example. I believe Tea Potty's response to Neven has been at the very least disrespectful.

Tea Potty: We've tried to reason with you. You have a lot to offer and I admire you're passion, but if you continue on this tangent, you'll do it alone. You accomplish nothing by burning bridges, and that is what you're doing. Good luck either way, but I do hope you will consider moderating you're message.

[Neven]

"Righteous Indignation - Righteous anger is typically a reactive emotion of anger over mistreatment, insult, or malice. It is akin to what is called the sense of injustice"

I hope this clarifies this up. Billions of ppl dying and living in misery is an injustice. It makes me angry, and its definitely not wrong to be. I hope it hurts you inside and makes you angry too.

Yes, it does clarify. We all have different interpretations of different words/expressions. I, for instance, associate 'righteous indignation' with religion or religious zeal (not meaning to imply you are that, just trying to explain why I don't see righteous indignation as a good type of anger). Coincidentally, it is also the title of a book. 

I like the entry on Wikipedia:

Daniel Whitby argues that "Anger is not always sinful",[2] in that it is found among non-sinners. For example, Jesus was "angry with the Pharisees for the hardness of their hearts; yet He had no desire to revenge this sin upon them, but had a great compassion for them".

(...)

In Scott's comment on Ephesians 4:26, "Be angry, and yet do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger", he notes that "...on many occasions, in the management of families, in reproving sin, and even in ordering their temporal concerns", anger is permitted of Christians. Nevertheless, Scott cautions that Christians should aim to "....be very circumspect and vigilant to restrain that dangerous passion within the bounds of reason, meekness, piety, and charity; not being angry without cause, or above cause, or in a proud, selfish, and peevish manner."

(...)

In McCosh's book Motive Powers, he notes that "We may be angry and sin not; but this disposition may become sinful, and this in the highest degree. It is so when it is excessive, when it is rage, and makes us lose control of ourselves. It is so, and may become a vice, when it leads us to wish evil to those who have offended us. It is resentment when it prompts us to meet and repay evil by evil. It is vengeance when it impels us to crush those who have injured us. It is vindictiveness when it is seeking out ingeniously and laboriously means and instruments to give pain to those who have thwarted us. Already sin has entered."

(...)

St. Thomas Aquinas, in the question on anger of his Summa Theologiae, quotes the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum, "he that is angry without cause, shall be in danger; but he that is angry with cause, shall not be in danger: for without anger, teaching will be useless, judgments unstable, crimes unchecked," and concludes saying that "to be angry is therefore not always an evil."

[Neven]

Nice post Magnamentis. Neven has founded and hosts the Forum and leads by example. I believe Tea Potty's response to Neven has been at the very least disrespectful.

I didn't perceive it as such, and even if I did, I don't mind most of the time.