Scientists say Trump cuts threaten climate research, public safety

Scientists say Trump cuts threaten climate research, public safety

Of course they do...but the Manic Moron from Mar-A-Lago could care less...

Tax cuts for him and his uber-rich buddies are more important than the climate we'll leave to our children...

Maybe it's time they started looking for a new field to work in.

Some people seem to think the public sector owes them a living, but if their skills are that important, the private sector will pick them up.

Some people seem to think the public sector owes them a living, but if their skills are that important, the private sector will pick them up.

Their skills, their work can be objectively be proved important, specially to stop companies from shifting their environmental costs into the public. The problem is a system where the companies can openly influence the politicians so they can silence the science to pretend nothing bad will happen, complicated when a large segment of the population is not scientifically literate enough to notice when this is happening.

"Significant elements of Project 2025 have already been implemented, despite Donald Trump disavowing any knowledge of it," Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland told AFP, vowing continued protests and legal action. "This is being carried out in a completely lawless and irresponsible manner."

Progress at around 40% and going on smoothly, as expected from an absolute priority of the government.

https://www.project2025.observer/

Some people seem to think the public sector owes them a living, but if their skills are that important, the private sector will pick them up.

Good point.

Every industry is subject to the same type of cuts.

Good point.

Every industry is subject to the same type of cuts.

Without justification, specially when research has been proved to be a huge economic stimulus and this specific field an absolute priority according to the global scientific consensus.

Protecting polluters by hiding the science is not productive nor desirable, except for the ones that are prioritize profits above acting responsibly.

The problem is a system where the companies can openly influence the politicians so they can silence the science to pretend nothing bad will happen, complicated when a large segment of the population is not scientifically literate enough to notice when this is happening.

This is no different to the pharmaceutical industry. Not "off topic", just pointing out blatant hypocrisy. The big difference is that the mining and oil industries aren't trying to force the public to use their products.

This is no different to the pharmaceutical industry.

In the US, not as a general rule.

Not "off topic", just pointing out blatant hypocrisy.

What hypocrisy? here the obvious problem is that science explicitly gets in the way of companies that profit a lot from destroying the environment, so silencing the science to let those companies profit soar is completely unacceptable. If the same thing applies to pharmaceutical companies (for example selling treatments that do not benefit the patients) that would be also unacceptable.

The actual situation is people with a deep antiscientific bias, so when profits are opposed to the science then they oppose the science even if that means destroying the environment, and when profits are NOT opposed to the science (like selling effective treatments) then the same people oppose the profits and the science.

Rational people would support the science in both cases, even if that means controlling companies and not letting them get as much profit as they wish. The current US government is doing the opposite, always being in the side of profits, even if that means hiding the science.

Scientists say Trump cuts threaten climate research, public safety

Of course he does. And his fans love it, because they're deluded and don't realize that +4° will make the planet inhospitable for everyone, not just "the libs".

What hypocrisy? here the obvious problem is that science explicitly gets in the way of companies that profit a lot from destroying the environment, so silencing the science to let those companies profit soar is completely unacceptable. If the same thing applies to pharmaceutical companies (for example selling treatments that do not benefit the patients) that would be also unacceptable.

The actual situation is people with a deep antiscientific bias, so when profits are opposed to the science then they oppose the science even if that means destroying the environment, and when profits are NOT opposed to the science (like selling effective treatments) then the same people oppose the profits and the science. 

Rational people would support the science in both cases, even if that means controlling companies and not letting them get as much profit as they wish. The current US government is doing the opposite, always being in the side of profits, even if that means hiding the science.

Quite an amateurish attempt at trying to muddy the waters. Climate scientists and the organisations that employ them are not exactly innocent when it comes to manipulating data and models to influence public policy through fearmongering. Blatant examples include the Climategate emails, Mann's hockey stick, Al Gore's propaganda flick, and the annual COP talkfests attended by scientists and activists alike that release the latest predictions of doom based on flawed models using data collected around heat islands to exaggerate natural changes.

And they're doing it on the public dollar for the most part. If they really want the money for their research, perhaps they can appeal to foundations and the like?

Quite an amateurish attempt at trying to muddy the waters

On the contrary it is a very simple argument that clearly debunks your misrepresentation

Climate scientists and the organisations that employ them are not exactly innocent when it comes to manipulating data and models to influence public policy through fearmongering

Yes they are, the scientific consensus of the whole world is clear and explicit, and for rational people having correct and precise information is no motive for fear, that is an irrational reaction of people with antiscientific bias that feel fear when personal beliefs are demonstrated as mistaken.

Blatant examples include the Climategate emails,

Example of antiscientific propaganda groups trying to twist reality and failing completely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.

Mann's hockey stick

The one proved to be correct?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stickgraph(global_temperature)

More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, support the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph

Al Gore's propaganda flick

So, which scientific authority are you imagining Al Gore has?

and the annual COP talkfests attended by scientists and activists alike that release the latest predictions of doom based on flawed models using data collected around heat islands to exaggerate natural changes.

Again, models that have been proved precise and correct, and if anything just too modest for the actual observed changes that are always on the drastic side.

And they're doing it on the public dollar for the most part. If they really want the money for their research, perhaps they can appeal to foundations and the like?

Just because 1 percenters see their profits reduced when they are made take responsibility of their decision that does not make the scientific proof of those negative effects less beneficial for the population in general. Scientific research is one of the most profitable things governments can use money, specially when it can justify measures that prevent uncountable losses because of climate change.

In comparison letting companies destroy the environment by hiding the evidence of how they do it is a terribly bad investment.

LOL! You've fallen for the "climate emergency" doom-mongering hook, line and sinker, eh? Good on ya.

On one side the scientific community of the world can show evidence of the climate change crisis, on the other nameless people on the internet say those are lies based on "Just trust me bro". No contest here.

BorsM,

"Quite an amateurish attempt at trying to muddy the waters. Climate scientists and the organisations that employ them are not exactly innocent when it comes to manipulating data and models to influence public policy through fearmongering. Blatant examples include the Climategate emails, Mann's hockey stick, Al Gore's propaganda flick, and the annual COP talkfests attended by scientists and activists alike that release the latest predictions of doom based on flawed models using data collected around heat islands to exaggerate natural changes.

And they're doing it on the public dollar for the most part. If they really want the money for their research, perhaps they can appeal to foundations and the like?"

That's very true, but the real problem is this fanatics treats science as absolute of which it's not. Interestingly, they are very fast quoting each other but rarely quote the author of absolute science and the King of the universe.

Alternative media podcast watchers are the go to people on any matters relating to science. Objective, educated, intelligent exacting and mature.

I like it when they talk about getting jacked, liberal tears, soyboys, the lack of women on oil rigs and the elites forcing us to eat insects.

You wouldn’t get that from a university professor.

That's very true, but the real problem is this fanatics treats science as absolute of which it's not.

As the references clearly prove all was very false, and there is zero requirement to treat science as absolute, it simply is the best available tool to find out what is real, with evidence and validated methods that prove things.

Fanatics would be those that without any evidence simply believe science must be wrong just because they don't want to believe the conclusions (or it is beneficial for them to ignore them), not a single piece of evidence or actual arguments, which is why the scientific conclusions remain valid.

There's a little truth to this, but a lot false.

Yes, some scientists exaggerate their findings or even fabricate results (often using public funding) to get their work accepted by high profile journals. But many of them later get caught and called out by other scientists who can't replicate the results. On the other hand, IPCC reports and especially COP decisions are overly conservative because they need to be approved by all governments.

Climate scientists and the organisations that employ them are not exactly innocent when it comes to manipulating data and models to influence public policy through fearmongering. Blatant examples include the Climategate emails, Mann's hockey stick, Al Gore's propaganda flick, and the annual COP talkfests attended by scientists and activists alike that release the latest predictions of doom based on flawed models using data collected around heat islands to exaggerate natural changes.

And they're doing it on the public dollar for the most part. If they really want the money for their research, perhaps they can appeal to foundations and the like?

The convicted felon and former Insurrectionist-in-Chief is an existential threat to the United States of America and the world at large.

In addition, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which does not exist as it has not been created by the U. S. Congress compounds the situation, as this Afrikaners Posse’s, slash and burn approach is destructive in so many ways.