As Election Nears, Trump Makes a Final Push Against Climate Science

[lasthero]

The two terms were used synonymously for decades if not longer. Its only when linguistic sophists decided to codify and normalize a mental condition on the back of the gay rights movement did those terms get set apart.

This is not true.

In the Oxford English Dictionary, gender is defined as, "n mod[ern] (esp[ecially] feminist) use, a euphemism for the sex of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the sexes.", with the earliest example cited being from 1963.

Sex and gender distinction - Wikipedia

Gender has meant different things in different cultures at different times. It's never been as cut and dry as that.

 

[MIDutch]

In the 70's, it was global cooling, then global warming before a lul in heating forced it to become climate change, a misnomer if ever there was one.

The global cooling hypothesis of the 70's was predicated on the Milankovitch cycles, which science was just beginning to learn about. According to the natural Milankovitch cycles, the Earth WAS entering a cooling trend similar to the ones preceding ice ages. Ergo, the general scientific conclusion that we were in for global cooling.

Of course, HUMAN effects on the natural climate cycles, specifically the industrial revolution and the release of man made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, basically destroyed the natural climate cycles predating human abilities to radically alter our global environment.

The global cooling hypothesis wasn't wrong, based on the preliminary understanding of the Milankovitch cycles, it was wrong based on a misunderstanding of human abilities to affect/change/destroy the world we live on.

 

[Halbhh]

If you listen to what Trump says about Covid also, it's more a...final push against reality itself.

A total manufacture of an imagined reality to replace the unattractive actual real situation.

An early sign of the shift came last month, when Erik Noble, a former White House policy adviser who had just been appointed NOAA’s chief of staff, removed Craig McLean, the agency’s acting chief scientist.

McLean had sent some of the new political appointees a message that asked them to acknowledge the agency’s scientific integrity policy, which prohibits manipulating research or presenting ideologically driven findings.

The request prompted a sharp response from Noble. “Respectfully, by what authority are you sending this to me?” he wrote, according to a person who received a copy of the exchange after it was circulated within NOAA.

McLean answered that his role as acting chief scientist made him responsible for ensuring that the agency’s rules on scientific integrity were followed.

The following morning, Noble responded. “You no longer serve as the acting chief scientist for NOAA,” he informed McLean, adding that a new chief scientist had already been appointed. “Thank you for your service.”

 

[pescador]

Yea, the same railing on about, "climate change", also tend to be on the same side as the folks telling everyone biology is a social construct and men can also have periods. Neither the Left nor Dems get to pontificate on Science as though it were their own creation.

Regarding "climate change", the models from 20 years ago predicting doom and gloom now haven't really panned out. Why would I trust today's projections given their demonstrable failures thus far?

This isn't the matrix. Computer generated oracles that see decades into the future is science fiction. Not actual science.

I have read many posts but this one is the most illogical I have ever read. If you don't think there is a real climate crisis then you disagree with the great majority of the world's environmental scientists.

Science is the number one tool to predict the future. If you disregard science you're living in fantasy land.

 

[MIDutch]

I have read many posts but this one is the most illogical I have ever read. If you don't think there is a real climate crisis then you disagree with the great majority of the world's environmental scientists.

Science is the number one tool to predict the future. If you disregard science you're living in fantasy land.

Climate change denialists are that level of illogical because they learned everything they do from creationists. They ignore, disparage, dismiss and illogically rant against science and the vast amount of evidence it has in support of it's conclusions, and offer fake or silly "evidence" in support of their "science". Jim Inhoffe bringing a snowball into senate chambers to "prove" that global warming isn't real is the climate change equivalent of the Delk track. Idiotic, false and illogical:

 

[Speedwell]

Climate change denialists are that level of illogical because they learned everything they do from creationists. They ignore, disparage, dismiss and illogically rant against science and the vast amount of evidence it has in support of it's conclusions, and offer fake or silly "evidence" in support of their "science". Jim Inhoffe bringing a snowball into senate chambers to "prove" that global warming isn't real is the climate change equivalent of the Delk track. Idiotic, false and illogical:

The question is, why? I can't see that climate science has anything at all to do with Christian doctrine.

 

[driewerf]

Yea, the same railing on about, "climate change", also tend to be on the same side as the folks telling everyone biology is a social construct and men can also have periods.

Strange. I haven't seen a lot of professional surgeons or endocrinologists write about global warming, and I haven't seen a lot of cllimatologists or glaciologists write about stuff like orchioctemy, vaginoplasty or uterine transplant.
You live in a wonderful world.

 

[driewerf]

The global cooling hypothesis of the 70's was predicated on the Milankovitch cycles, which science was just beginning to learn about. According to the natural Milankovitch cycles, the Earth WAS entering a cooling trend similar to the ones preceding ice ages. Ergo, the general scientific conclusion that we were in for global cooling.

Of course, HUMAN effects on the natural climate cycles, specifically the industrial revolution and the release of man made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, basically destroyed the natural climate cycles predating human abilities to radically alter our global environment.

The global cooling hypothesis wasn't wrong, based on the preliminary understanding of the Milankovitch cycles, it was wrong based on a misunderstanding of human abilities to affect/change/destroy the world we live on.

Imagine that, learning from mistakes and correcting them. How un-Trumpian!

by the way, read:
Trump questions Puerto Rico hurricane deaths