If the science is not settled...

[kallend 2,175]

... surely we need more research, not less.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/03/white-house-proposes-steep-budget-cut-to-leading-climate-science-agency/?utm_term=.5b8ea973543b&wpisrc=nl_draw2&wpmm=1


(It couldn't be a blatant attempt to suppress the facts, could it?)

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[winsor 236]

kallend

... surely we need more research, not less.

www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/03/white-house-proposes-steep-budget-cut-to-leading-climate-science-agency/?utm_term=.5b8ea973543b&wpisrc=nl_draw2&wpmm=1


(It couldn't be a blatant attempt to suppress the facts, could it?)

I was pleased when Trump criticized the F-35 program, since the aircraft is a massively overpriced kluge. Having said that, when he decided that we are somehow spending too little on 'defense' I was floored.

I think most of the criticism of Trump errs on the side of giving him too much credit. Germany in the '30s and '40s focused more on land and air than naval forces because the guy in charge had been a corporal in the trenches and didn't know shit from Shinola (tm) when it came to naval warfare, not because of some grand strategy. Similarly, Trump knows about as much as does Gore about meteorology, oceanography and science in general (nothing), but his emotional basis is quite different than Al Gore's (note: Al Gore has brought in some $100,000 flying around in his Gulfstream as a shill for Climate Change, so the 'follow the money' principle rather applies in his case).

Trump's policies are yet another case in point of Hanlon's Razor.

In any event, all the knowledge gleaned from NOAA's research is not likely to affect the long term outlook for the issues they quantify. I am reminded of James Mason's character's explanation of selling information to the Germans in the film 'Five Fingers.' His stance was that Germany was sure to lose, and selling them information regarding quite how they were to be thrashed was akin to selling a condemned man information regarding the height of the gallows, the type of rope, and the height he would drop before his neck snapped. The point here is that all the information in the world does not affect the outcome.

I am a huge fan of environmental responsibility. I am very pleased that streams in forest preserves are not frothing from phosphate detergents, that Bald Eagles can survive gestation without having their egg shells compromised by DDT and that the 2,450 mile long rusty beer cans and litter trash dump that was Route 66 is a thing of the past.

Having said that, the information necessary to avoid the catastrophe we face was available half a century ago. Calhoun coined the phrase 'Behavioral Sink' in 1962, and the Erlichs published 'The Population Bomb' in 1968, and the veracity of their work has been substantiated again and again.

If ignorance is bliss, Trump must be one of the happiest people alive.

Note: Be careful to avoid having bias affect your judgment. As a misanthrope, I am very even handed in my disapproval.


BSBD,

Winsor

[billvon 3,131]

Quote

In any event, all the knowledge gleaned from NOAA's research is not likely to affect the long term outlook for the issues they quantify.

I would argue that, to use your term, "knowing shit from shineola" will lead to better decisions in the future, not worse.

If we have a good idea on the science behind what's happening, we have a better (not a great, just a better) opportunity to make good decisions on how to mitigate the effects of what is occurring. Ignorance is fun (and profitable!) but a poor goal when it comes to understanding how the planet is changing

[winsor 236]

billvon

Quote

In any event, all the knowledge gleaned from NOAA's research is not likely to affect the long term outlook for the issues they quantify.

I would argue that, to use your term, "knowing shit from shineola" will lead to better decisions in the future, not worse.

If we have a good idea on the science behind what's happening, we have a better (not a great, just a better) opportunity to make good decisions on how to mitigate the effects of what is occurring. Ignorance is fun (and profitable!) but a poor goal when it comes to understanding how the planet is changing

Sometimes knowledge has little effect on outcome.

[billvon 3,131]

>In 40s the planet was burning up.

No, it wasn't.

>In the 70s it was heading into a mini ice age.

No, it wasn't.

>Now its back to burning up.

No, it wasn't.

>AGW is not about science, it is about dollars.

It is, of course, about both. It is about science; one of the outputs of the science is estimates for dollars. (Both for changes that affect the economy and the costs of mitigation.)

[AlanS 1]

Iago

In 40s the planet was burning up.

In the 70s it was heading into a mini ice age.

Now its back to burning up.

AGW is not about science, it is about dollars.

It is ashamed when politically minded people mangle science. Please watch this video to get to the end.

https://youtu.be/ztninkgZ0ws?list=PLsPUh22kYmNDRYfImV3BzNZ6yTwhIpe0k

Our human induced greenhouse gas input into the atmosphere will overwhelm the orbital conditions which use to determine our climate.

[gowlerk 2,283]

Quote

Our human induced greenhouse gas input into the atmosphere will overwhelm the orbital conditions which use to determine our climate.

But only temporarily. A few millennia and things should be back in balance! The Earth will still be here long after us.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.