Trump move to politicised non-science on climate?

As with some other policies Donald Trump is sending out mixed signals on climate change.

He has said that he sees some connection between humans and th4e changing climate, but has just been reported he will eliminate all climate change research conducted by NASA as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”.

But the confused signals may be because Trump hasn’t had time to work out what to do yet.

The Atlantic: What Does Trump Think About Climate Change? He Doesn’t Know Either

Speaking at the offices of The New York Times on Tuesday, Donald J. Trump appeared to vacillate on, and sometimes even disagree with, previous statements about climate change made by Donald J. Trump. He even seemed ready to grant that climate change exists.

“I think there is some connectivity” between humans and the changing climate, he told the Times reporters and editors, according to Maggie Haberman.

He also told Tom Friedman, the Times columnist, that he was keeping “an open mind” about the Paris Agreement, the first international treaty to combat climate change.

Maybe he’s just been reading the news. More than 70 percent of Americans, and a majority of Republicans, want the United States to remain in the Paris Agreement, according to a poll from the University of Chicago. Hundreds of U.S. companies have also asked the Trump administration to stay in the treaty. They aren’t just liberal-aligned firms, either: Many of them, including Kellogg and General Mills, have given tens of thousands to Republicans in the recent past.

Even the Fox News host Bill O’Reilly is coming around to the agreement. “‘President-elect Trump should accept the Paris treaty on climate to buy some goodwill overseas,” he said on-air last week.

But from the Guardian: Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”, his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.

Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.

Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.

“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.

“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”

Trump has previously said that climate change is a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese.

Trump’s pick to head the Environment Protection Agency sort of contradicts his appartent stance against ‘politicised science’.

Business Insider: Trump is taking advice on the future of the environment from a man who denies basic science

So what will Trump’s actual environmental policies look like? Here’s what we know.

Trump has picked a man named Myron Ebell to oversee the EPA transition.

Ebell is not a scientist, and has no degrees or qualifications in climate science. But he serves as Director of Global Warming and Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian advocacy group in Washington, DC.

In practice, that means he spends his time rejecting and trying to discredit scientists who work to understand the global climate.

Ebell believes that climate scientists are part of a coordinated ‘global warming movement’

Much like Trump has suggested.

It looks like the \US may be headed for politicised non-science.

Leave a comment

33 Comments

  1. Corky.

     /  23rd November 2016

    This is a chance for Trumpy to go down in history as the: ” The President who called out the Emperor for indecent exposure and ended the greatest scam in world history( apart from taxes).
    Maybe that will allowed brow-beaten scientists who have participated in this scam to come forward and spill the beans without fear of persecution.

    Reply
    • And if there’s no world climate conspiracy?

      (I don’t think there is any proof of a scam, just repeated claims by a small minority).

      Reply
      • Anonymous Coward

         /  23rd November 2016

        The issue, for me, with climate change has always been that over the millennia the earth has had no set climate, it’s fluctuated between extremes. This makes the term “climate change” meaningless. Now that people are starting to call it “man made climate change” or the “anthropocene” I sort of get their point, but on the scale of the earths existence, I’m still not convinced.

        Reply
      • Corky.

         /  23rd November 2016

        There’s no world conspiracy… just scientists who have set their minds on a certain outcome and have made their science fit the theory. They have thrown all ethics out the window. Even when caught out ( leaked e-mails. failed climate change models and IPCC censure) they carry on regardless because they know the general public are as thick as pig shite.

        Tesla, Luther Burbank and Herman Oberth were real scientists. Climate Change scientists are mediocre lackies who are scared of the truth but very accommodating of funding and prestige.

        Reply
        • Serious accusations.

          “just scientists who have set their minds on a certain outcome and have made their science fit the theory. ”

          Evidence of this? How many scientists are you talking about?

          Reply
          • Anonymous Coward

             /  23rd November 2016

            the figure bandied about is 95%.

            Reply
          • Corky.

             /  23rd November 2016

            Sorry Pete I’m ]all burnt out debating this on other sites. However, you have called me out and I will give you two quick examples:

            You have heard the catch cry….97% of scientists accept climate change theory( or similar such sentiments). Ask the man in the street and he will parrot similar.

            But !!?

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

            Lets turn to John Keys science advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman. He advises the PM on climate change and other issues. So what does he know about climate change? Well,nothing. He is briefed by other scientists. So the nuances of climate science is beyond him. Surely the ethical thing to do is turn down any appointment regarding climate change?

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

            And we haven’t even got to the theory .

            Reply
            • Are you trying to say that you understand the nuances of climate change far better than Gluckman?

              If you think it’s ethical for him to have no involvement in climate discussions what appropriate qualification do you have to discuss it?

            • Corky.

               /  23rd November 2016

              No, but I’m saying I could easily hold my own with him on general theory.
              It basically rests on one old experiment that has been only part explained. But you deflect. This is about Gluckman. I don’t need to know crap about climate, but Gluckman does. And he knows nothing. That climate tax we pay could buy a couple of loaves of bread a week for the poor( they buy $1.20 loaves of bread with the nutrient profile of cardboard) if it was added to their income.

              So, to summarise. I don’t come into this argument. Gluckman does. I say he does NZ a disservice because he can only accept what he is told. And the PM can only accept what Gluckman tells him……that is unethical in my opinion. And its fraud on the taxpayer.

            • How do you know Gluckman knows nothing about climate science?

              Do the science advisers of all the other world leader’s know nothing about climate science too?

            • Corky.

               /  23rd November 2016

              How do I know Gluckman knows nothing about climate change, or more correctly the nuances of climate change? See the above Wikipedia link of his impressive CV. Nothing though about climate science.

              I’m sorry Pete, when I get on a plane I want a professional pilot, not a plumber who has been advised of the basics of flying and has had a few lessons. Gluckman is that plumber. Worse he is advising the head pilot who is completely blind.

          • PDB

             /  23rd November 2016

            If any other ‘science’ had as many fails as the climate change scientists have had you would start to call it one big overblown joke & immediately remove their funding. Have any of their thousands of ‘predictions’ of impending doom ever been correct where a timeframe has been put in place by them? Polar Bears still about in number, the poles are not ice-free (far from it) and winter in the USA still features snow.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01/13/the-abject-failure-of-official-global-warming-predictions/

            Reply
            • A lot of successful science is dependant on learning from failures.

              I don’t think you understand the time frames along with the range of possible scenarios put forward, and that as is normal in such a complex science are continually reassessed and adjusted as more becomes known.

            • Anonymous Coward

               /  23rd November 2016

              The timeframes going forward have nothing on the timeframes going back and yes, you look back over a lot of extinctions, but what you don’t look back at is a world where there’s a constant climate, sea level, or continents. To think we’ve caused any climate change is possible, to think we can tame the earth and survive as a species for eternity is wishful at best.

  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  23rd November 2016

    A more balanced, less partisan, assessment: http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060046062

    Reply
  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  23rd November 2016

    I was referring to Rafi Letzter’s assessment of Ebell in Business Insider, not you or yours, PG. He is partisan on global warming.

    There is something weird going on with WordPress though. I just loaded this page on three different browsers and two different devices and that link and others in your post are being corrupted and don’t work.

    Reply
    • I had a broken link show up on a new post but I refreshed and it came right. I don’t know what’s going on.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  23rd November 2016

        It’s weird. The main links in this post are broken but the secondary ones are ok. The link in the Toxic Masculinity post is broken but all the others I checked are ok. Looking at the code the way they are broken is bizarre – the “http://” is there but the rest has been replaced by a bit of text from the document.

        Reply
        • I might have just stuffed up the Toxic masculinity link, I’ve fixed it.

          The editor is a pain at the moment, things stop working for about 30 seconds when adding links so it’s easy to past the wrong thing into the link when distracted/waiting.

          Reply
  4. Gezza

     /  23rd November 2016

    I couldn’t get this one to open from the post.
    Just trying it from popping it into google.
    http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/what-does-trump-think-about-climate-change-he-doesnt-know-either/508541/

    Reply
    • That was exactly the same problem so I either made exactly the same mistake, which is possible, or something odd is happening.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  23rd November 2016

        Oh – that link above works for me, chrome’s giving me an ‘open in new tab’ option & it works when selected.

        Reply
    • Gezza

       /  23rd November 2016

      Yeah that’s ok. That and your other main article link on my iPad, using chrome, just give me an “open” option and when clicked the page just opens blank with ‘about:blank’ in the url field.

      Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  23rd November 2016

    Here is a nice summary of global warming politics by someone who knows the science and the politics: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/11/global-warming-policy-hoax-versus-dodgy-science/

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  23rd November 2016

      I like Spencer’s comment that climate science is not rocket science, it’s a lot more complicated. Comes well from an ex-NASA scientist and very true.

      Reply
      • It’s hugely complicated, and that’s why it’s hard for media to report on it well and it’s easy for ‘sceptics’ to claim errors and point out inconsistencies.

        It’s still very much a work in progress and always will be.

        I think it’s important that the science and the research continues so we get a better understanding of what might be happening and whether we can realistically do anything about it.

        If all we end up with is more efficient energy use, more renewables and less emissions will be better off regardless of what the climate ends up doing.

        The climate definitely appears to be changing. It’s not just measurements and research that suggest this, there’s also growing evidence of vegetation changes with altitude that support the science.

        Reply
  6. Kitty Catkin

     /  24th November 2016

    It seems to me that Trump is trying to have a bob each way and not be seen to be wrong no matter which theory is proved right.He is doing himself no favours.

    Why were the Chinese singled out for blame ? Does he think that they can’t read English, so won’t notice ?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: