Scientists march on Washington

[RickG]

There is an organized march planned by the greater scientific community to march on Washington, April 22, 2017, Earth Day.

Contrary to how some media sources may portray this march, it is not one organized by environmental activists, rather a gathering encouraged by mainstream science organizations.

What is my interest in this? I am a retired research chemist and process engineer, with academic credentials in the Earth Sciences. What concerns me are the Trump administration choices for the government agencies that will oversee the EPA, NASA, NOAA, and other associated government sponsored science organizations; and a presidential directive to remove climate science data from government agency websites, whose very function is to research and obtain that data.

Thoughts?

 

[Radrook]

There is an organized march planned by the greater scientific community to march on Washington, April 22, 2017, Earth Day.

Contrary to how some media sources may portray this march, it is not one organized by environmental activists, rather a gathering encouraged by mainstream science organizations.

What is my interest in this? I am a retired research chemist and process engineer, with academic credentials in the Earth Sciences. What concerns me are the Trump administration choices for the government agencies that will oversee the EPA, NASA, NOAA, and other associated government sponsored science organizations; and a presidential directive to remove climate science data from government agency websites, whose very function is to research and obtain that data.

Thoughts?

What concerns you about his choices?

 

[miamited]

Hi rick,

You wrote:

and a presidential directive to remove climate science data from government agency websites, whose very function is to research and obtain that data.

I'm not sure what your concern is that climate science data might be removed from government websites. Is this removal going to mean that the agencies in question will then no longer obtain and research the data? Or is it just being removed from public access on the web?

God bless you.
In Christ, ted

 

[RickG]

What concerns you about his choices?

Lack of qualifications and conflict of interest.

 

[Sandy Zalecki]

Climate change was predicted in the Bible. The question is can we do anything to stop it?

 

[inquiring mind]

I’m not qualified in the earth sciences, but so help me, if the greater scientific community starts vandalizing too, I’m giving up on any chance we got to stop the social madness.

 

[Radrook]

Climate change was predicted in the Bible. The question is can we do anything to stop it?

We can march!

 

[Sandy Zalecki]

We can march!

That we can do. LOL

 

[RickG]

Hi rick,

You wrote:


I'm not sure what your concern is that climate science data might be removed from government websites. Is this removal going to mean that the agencies in question will then no longer obtain and research the data? Or is it just being removed from public access on the web?

God bless you.
In Christ, ted

From my point of view I am looking at it from a scientists point of view, not a political one. Few people realize that the EPA, NASA and NOAA do an enormous amount of original scientific research. Contrary to what one may understand, the bulk of NASA, NOAA and the EPA research is involved in Earth science and Earth's environment. In fact anyone can go to their websites and access not only the research, but the original data sets as well. The fear among the scientists in those agencies is that the data may be lost.

 

[essentialsaltes]

It's very disturbing that government scientists have been placed under a gag rule -- they can't release their results to the public without political operatives giving it the okay.

It's very disturbing that the Trump Administration wants to turn a blind eye to the earth and climate. They are topics worthy of scientific study, and they have implications for the general public.

I hope the science march focuses on how the Trump Administration is corroding the practice of science.

I hope the science march does not focus on particular policies.

In other words, I want signs that say, "The people deserve free and open scientific inquiry into important topics, and using the best practices of science, so that our leaders have the best information from which to make decisions."

Rather than signs that say, "Ban Coal!"

But I know which one fits better on a signboard.

 

[RickG]

I’m not qualified in the earth sciences, but so help me, if the greater scientific community starts vandalizing too, I’m giving up on any chance we got to stop the social madness.

I am concerned that there may be some outline environmental activists that may involve themselves with that. That would be very unfortunate and something I do not approve of. I am quite confident that we will not see actual practicing scientists doing anything like that.

 

[JacksBratt]

There is an organized march planned by the greater scientific community to march on Washington, April 22, 2017, Earth Day.

Contrary to how some media sources may portray this march, it is not one organized by environmental activists, rather a gathering encouraged by mainstream science organizations.

What is my interest in this? I am a retired research chemist and process engineer, with academic credentials in the Earth Sciences. What concerns me are the Trump administration choices for the government agencies that will oversee the EPA, NASA, NOAA, and other associated government sponsored science organizations; and a presidential directive to remove climate science data from government agency websites, whose very function is to research and obtain that data.

Thoughts?

I am sure, Rick, that you know my position on "climate change".

I know that the climate is in flux. I also know that there are scientists, who are experts, that hold different views as to what the cause is.

That is not what I am posting about, this time.

The governments of this world are reacting to the data given to them by the scientific community. Let me tell you what that is doing to my home Province of Ontario, Canada.

I have posted here, before, of the total and absolute bungling of the electrical power generation and distribution here.
1/ In order to get enough votes, in his riding, the leader of the provincial liberal party promised to cancel the building of some natural gas powered electrical generation plants in his riding.

When he was elected, he came true. However, he was legally responsible to pay the contracted price for the build. So, the contracting company got payed for materials, permits, equipment, fuel, wages and all other costs for the build.... but no work, not even a finger was lifted. The Ontario tax payers now have this debt put toward their electricity bill.

2/ We create too much electricity. Yet, our government, in promotion of "Green" energy, signed 20 year contracts for anyone to produce solar or wind power. They pay them 80 cents a kilowatt hour and sell it for 10 to 18 cents. This has compounded the debt.

3/ Since we produce too much electricity, we PAY Quebec and the states to take our excess.

4/ Since we produce too much electricity we pay power generating stations to NOT produce power.

5/ Our electrical cost for residential and industrial consumers has doubled in the last 5 years due, totally, to this mismanagement.

6/ The elected officials just gave huge raises to the workers at all levels of the power generating community while the rest of the province is lucky if they don't get salary cuts.

7/ The biggest insult of all, they have slapped a CAP and TRADE tax on electricity, natural gas, propane, diesel fuel and gasoline as part of this whole "climate change" issue.


So, with all these fees going up. With people struggling to pay their electrical bill. With industry finding it difficult to continue to operate in this province.....

I have to ask....How much am I going to be affected and persuaded to decrease my consumption of "carbon producing" energy by insane cap and trade taxes, when I am already using as little as possible just to stay on budget?

You can argue until your blue in the face that carbon is heating the earth. However, moving carbon units around in a shell game of cap and trade.... is ludicrous. It does nothing.

The future of our generations, financially, is far more of an issue than the questionable problems of CO2. You may have less CO2 in the future but bankrupt and impoverished civilians with industries that cannot afford to function.

It's time to face the facts.

1/We have absolutely no economically feasible alternatives to the present electrical power generating methods.

2/Cap and Trade just gives a "feel good" result and has no affect of lowering emissions.

3/ If Canada's emissions could be likened to a single burning match... China is a forest fire... and your not changing China's attitude.

4/ This whole agenda of the global collection of nations, meeting to agree on the monetary measures to tax their collective civilians and industries, will not lower carbon emissions. What it will do is make billions of dollars for the wealthy.

I know you are passionate about this "climate change" issue and it's causes. I know you want a future for our generations that follow.

But, at what cost? Is there even going to be industry, jobs, affordable energy?

I am concerned that my grand kids will live in poverty.

In the end, God is in control. Do you not have enough faith in Him to trust that whatever is happening with the climate, He is in control?

The damage being done with these measures to stop it are worse than the effects of the issue your trying to stop....If it is even man made in the first place.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm not sure what your concern is that climate science data might be removed from government websites. Is this removal going to mean that the agencies in question will then no longer obtain and research the data? Or is it just being removed from public access on the web?

Even previous to Trump, there was a growing sentiment from the far-right that "anything supporting the notion of climate change must be a hoax or a con from the left"

That was happening for a couple of reasons...
1) The information put forth by scientists conflicts with biblical accounts of how human existence on the earth can end. So, for biblical literalists, accepting the information from the scientists would be an acknowledgment that their book might not be 100% accurate...so that's never going to happen, and GOP leaders know this, and they also know that group makes up about 30-40% of their voter base which they can't afford to lose, so they'll continue to pander to them.

2) The left has been using climate science as a means of cronyism with the "Green Industry" for some time now, so that falsely gives many on the right the impression that the science itself is the scam, when in fact, the science behind it is fine (it's solid, there's a strong consensus, and the literature from organizations across the globe has been peer reviewed with consistent findings), it's the cronyism itself that's the scam.

To provide a hypothetical parallel...

Let's say I was in a position of governmental power. I hire a research team to study the effects of certain food additives. The research teams all come back with the same conclusion that one of the food additives is potentially harmful. With that information, I use it to funnel huge sums of taxpayer money towards companies (that friends of mine happen to run) in the "let's restrict food additive XYZ" field.

Now, in this scenario, the science is fine...it's my relationship to that industry that's problematic. However, people on the far-right are lumping the scientific aspect of it in as if it were part of the scam. (either due to one of the 2 reasons listed above, or just for a simple lack of knowledge in the field itself)

Climate change was predicted in the Bible. The question is can we do anything to stop it?

Yes, there are several things we can do to stop it. (by we, I mean humanity as a whole...the US by itself can't produce that level of change with countries like India & China doing what they're doing).

I'm not a religious person, and usually I don't care what a person wants to believe as long as it's not harming anyone else...but in certain circumstances, I do get mildly annoyed when people are content to let a bad situation propagate simply on the grounds that "well, it was prophesied in my book...nothing we can do about it" (please understand, I'm not trying to attack you personally on this one).

In terms of what can be done, there are some things...some are a little trickier and will require some high-level solutions, but others aren't all that difficult.

If you look at the environmental impact attributed to the production of red meat (beef & lamb...but mostly beef), it's huge. It uses almost 30x more land, and 10x more water than it's poultry and pork counterparts. ...it also produces 12x more greenhouse gasses per pound of product than pork & chicken. Beef production is also responsible for 2/3 of the worlds ammonia emissions.

Some scientists have given a balanced approach to this...they're not even suggesting that we have to give up all beef or anything that drastic, some have said that reducing the global demand for beef by 1/3 would be enough to put us back in sustainable level from an agricultural/farming perspective. Or another way of looking at it, for every three hamburgers you'd normally eat, replace one with a chicken breast or fish.

Now, I don't subscribe to the idea that "humans are supposed to be vegans/vegetarians" or anything like that, but I have personally given up most of my beef consumption and replaced it with chicken. (I still have my one steak a week that I purchase from a local grass-fed farm, but that's pretty much it).

To me at least, that seems like a small simple change that everyone could make if they really wanted to...

 

[South Bound]

What concerns me are the Trump administration choices for the government agencies that will oversee the EPA, NASA, NOAA, and other associated government sponsored science organizations; and a presidential directive to remove climate science data from government agency websites, whose very function is to research and obtain that data.

Thoughts?

Good. There shouldn't be an EPA NASA and NOAA should be privatized or abolished.

The government shouldn't be in the business of fake science and "climate change".

The Constitution tells us exactly what the duties of the federal government are and politicized "science" is not among them.

I'm ready for my infraction now.

 

[High Fidelity]

Good. There shouldn't be an EPA NASA and NOAA should be privatized or abolished.

The government shouldn't be in the business of fake science and "climate change".

The Constitution tells us exactly what the duties of the federal government are and politicized "science" is not among them.

I'm ready for my infraction now.

Hi South Bound. I am curious what qualifies you academically and/or professionally to critique and discredit such broad areas of science and large swaths of scientific research.

 

[South Bound]

Hi South Bound. I am curious what qualifies you academically and/or professionally to critique and discredit such broad areas of science and large swaths of scientific research.

I address the substance of people's posts. I don't try to belittle them.

You will show me the same courtesy.

 

[High Fidelity]

I address the substance of people's posts. I don't try to belittle them.

You will show me the same courtesy.

I'm not trying to belittle you. You're making very bold claims with apparent certainty. I am curious what you base that certainty and boldness on.

Is that not a fair point?

 

[South Bound]

I'm not trying to belittle you. You're making very bold claims with apparent certainty.

Fine. Prove me wrong. Show us where those things are found in the Constitution.

 

[High Fidelity]

Fine. Prove me wrong. Show us where those things are found in the Constitution.

I'm more concerned with 'fake science' than the Constitution comment.

My opinion on 'politicised science' is that frankly we wouldn't be where we are today without it, but yeah, more curious about the 'fake science' comment.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Climate change was predicted in the Bible. The question is can we do anything to stop it?

Yes, tie a strong enough rope around it and it can be stopped from changing.

If that doesn't work then no.

It is constantly changing because if the temperature on the planet's surface is fairly stable which it is, then there will be a long lag in the very slow change in ocean temperatures still affected by the last ice age so the ocean will just keep slowly rising unless it cools down up here, but that would also be climate change.