Scott Pruitt, the director of the EPA currently facing 16 (that's right, 16!) investigations for unethical behavior tried to run and hide from the press yesterday. Only friendly press was allowed into a meeting concerning water contamination while other reporters were excluded and even physically removed from the premises.
Why in the world would Pruitt want to excluded the press from a meeting on an issue of critical importance to everyone (we ALL drink water)? Why would they physically lay hands on a reporter to remove her from the premises? And, why in the world would Pruitt think he would get away with it? It all points to how corrupt he is - he thinks he can get away with anything because he has been getting away with everything. Even a science hater like Pruitt can do that math.
Eventually, you have to ask why Trump keeps such an obviously corrupt official. After seeing how his 'fixer' was taking payoffs for access to Trump (pay to play), I'm waiting for the revelation of how much the fossil fuel industry 'donated.' Pruitt is dirty. By association, so is Trump.
Watch this for a little pertinent fun: Do-it Pruitt
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 23, 2018
Sunday, May 13, 2018
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Trump is simply too stupid to understand the science
Trump likes to boast that he's "like, really smart." He goes even further, stating, "I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius." I've been reading his statements for many years, going back to the time I first saw him on 60 Minutes in 1985, and my conclusion, based on his own words, is that he's not very smart at all. Based on what I've seen, I would peg his IQ at about average - right around 100.
But worse than that, he's not well educated. I think this goes to his ego. When he comes across a topic he can't understand, he simply ignores it and makes up something to satisfy his need to feel superior. In short, he's not smart enough to understand science, so he rejects it. And, this is why he isn't just a climate change denier, he's a climate change hater and is bent on a war on science. Science makes him feel inferior, so he's going to do all he can to destroy it.
His most recent statements, in a British ITV interview, is a perfect example of his complete lack of understanding of science. In this interview, he stated, "There is a cooling, and there’s a heating." Really, Mr. President? Which one is it? Cooling? Or, heating? You can't have both. The planet is either heating up, or it isn't.
Doubling down on that lack of understanding, he simultaneously appeared to refer to the the false claim about global warming and climate change phraseology when he stated, "I mean, look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming. Right? That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place.”
Actually, it still is global warming. Back in the W. Bush administration, there was concern about how the public was getting concerned about 'global warming,' and it was decided to start referring to it by another name that sounded less dire. So, the Republicans began referring to it as 'climate change.' This is known as the Luntz memo. Anti-science people like to claim scientists changed the name because there was no warming. In fact, it was the deniers who changed the name because there was too much warming. Scientists have adopted this extra term because it covers more than global warming - ocean acidification, for example.
And, no, it isn't getting too cold 'all over the place,' as Trump stated. In fact, according to NASA and NOAA, 2017 was the second or third hottest year on record. According to NOAA, the five hottest years ever recorded have occurred since 2006. What is alarming about that figure is that there was no El Nino in 2017 to boost the atmospheric temperature. This is the new normal, as they say.
Not having been satisfied displaying his ignorance, he went even further and stated “polar ice caps were supposed to be gone by now,” but instead they’re “breaking records.”
No, and no.
While some individuals made claims ice caps were supposed to be gone by now, the vast majority have been stating we should expect an ice-free Arctic Ocean during the summer sometime around the 2040 - 2050 time frame. I happen to think it will first occur in the 2030s. Which illustrates the point I'm making - even the pessimistic scientists haven't been predicting an ice free Arctic Ocean by now.
And, as for the 'breaking records,' he's not only wrong, he's very wrong. The minimum extent for 2017 was the eight-lowest minimum in the satellite record and was 1.58 million square kilometers below the long-term average. Even Antarctica is below average and experienced it's fifth lowest maximum extent this past September (summer time in Antarctica). Arctic sea ice extent is declining at a rate of 13.2% per decade.
It's bad enough when your neighbor, or coworker, or someone in the bar isn't smart enough to understand the science. But, when the President of the United States isn't, it's a serious problem.
But worse than that, he's not well educated. I think this goes to his ego. When he comes across a topic he can't understand, he simply ignores it and makes up something to satisfy his need to feel superior. In short, he's not smart enough to understand science, so he rejects it. And, this is why he isn't just a climate change denier, he's a climate change hater and is bent on a war on science. Science makes him feel inferior, so he's going to do all he can to destroy it.
His most recent statements, in a British ITV interview, is a perfect example of his complete lack of understanding of science. In this interview, he stated, "There is a cooling, and there’s a heating." Really, Mr. President? Which one is it? Cooling? Or, heating? You can't have both. The planet is either heating up, or it isn't.
Doubling down on that lack of understanding, he simultaneously appeared to refer to the the false claim about global warming and climate change phraseology when he stated, "I mean, look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming. Right? That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place.”
Actually, it still is global warming. Back in the W. Bush administration, there was concern about how the public was getting concerned about 'global warming,' and it was decided to start referring to it by another name that sounded less dire. So, the Republicans began referring to it as 'climate change.' This is known as the Luntz memo. Anti-science people like to claim scientists changed the name because there was no warming. In fact, it was the deniers who changed the name because there was too much warming. Scientists have adopted this extra term because it covers more than global warming - ocean acidification, for example.
And, no, it isn't getting too cold 'all over the place,' as Trump stated. In fact, according to NASA and NOAA, 2017 was the second or third hottest year on record. According to NOAA, the five hottest years ever recorded have occurred since 2006. What is alarming about that figure is that there was no El Nino in 2017 to boost the atmospheric temperature. This is the new normal, as they say.
Not having been satisfied displaying his ignorance, he went even further and stated “polar ice caps were supposed to be gone by now,” but instead they’re “breaking records.”
No, and no.
While some individuals made claims ice caps were supposed to be gone by now, the vast majority have been stating we should expect an ice-free Arctic Ocean during the summer sometime around the 2040 - 2050 time frame. I happen to think it will first occur in the 2030s. Which illustrates the point I'm making - even the pessimistic scientists haven't been predicting an ice free Arctic Ocean by now.
And, as for the 'breaking records,' he's not only wrong, he's very wrong. The minimum extent for 2017 was the eight-lowest minimum in the satellite record and was 1.58 million square kilometers below the long-term average. Even Antarctica is below average and experienced it's fifth lowest maximum extent this past September (summer time in Antarctica). Arctic sea ice extent is declining at a rate of 13.2% per decade.
It's bad enough when your neighbor, or coworker, or someone in the bar isn't smart enough to understand the science. But, when the President of the United States isn't, it's a serious problem.
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Donald Trump - The Low-IQ President
I think it's time for everyone to admit that Donald Trump simply is not very intelligent. There's an old saying that people usually get the government they deserve. It's certainly true in this case. We allowed two horribly despicable people to be the main party candidates. We were bound to get a corrupt and unqualified president. Take your pick.
So, how do we get out of this mess? The first thing is to admit we screwed up. Between the two of them, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were nominated by only 11% of the eligible electorate. And, despite the frequent claims, Clinton did NOT win the popular vote. Where I come from, the term 'won the popular vote' means that you got the majority of the votes. Getting MORE votes does not qualify. The truth is, Clinton was REJECTED by 52% of the voters and Trump was REJECTED by 54%. Meaning, the two main candidates were both rejected by the people, but we got stuck. Someone had to win.
Maybe if a few more people had voted in the primaries things would be different. I plead guilty to this charge. I'm a devoted independent and refuse to be a member of any political party. Both the Democrats and the Republicans clearly demonstrated they are not worthy of my allegiance. But, what if a bunch of us 89% had showed up and voted in the primaries for someone else?
People get the government they deserve.
And, now we have the latest manifestation of this low-IQ individual being in the driver's seat. I'm sure you've read or heard about Trump tweeting that climate change is a good thing and we need more of it because the eastern US is gripped by record cold. This means we have a president who doesn't even know the difference between weather and climate making the key decisions on the matter. Plenty of sources rushed to try and educate him, but to no avail. Quite simply, Trump is not intelligent enough to understand the science, so he rejects it. Oh, by the way, what ever happened to climate change being a hoax? How can climate change be a good thing when he's already declared it's a hoax?
And, of course, the are of the country experiencing the cold is actually a small area on the planetary scale. Take a look at this plot of temperature anomalies in the western part of the northern hemisphere, including the US. The red areas are warmer than normal, the blue ones are colder than normal.
The red areas are clearly more extensive than the blue ones.
What was that about a hoax?
So, how do we get out of this mess? The first thing is to admit we screwed up. Between the two of them, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were nominated by only 11% of the eligible electorate. And, despite the frequent claims, Clinton did NOT win the popular vote. Where I come from, the term 'won the popular vote' means that you got the majority of the votes. Getting MORE votes does not qualify. The truth is, Clinton was REJECTED by 52% of the voters and Trump was REJECTED by 54%. Meaning, the two main candidates were both rejected by the people, but we got stuck. Someone had to win.
Maybe if a few more people had voted in the primaries things would be different. I plead guilty to this charge. I'm a devoted independent and refuse to be a member of any political party. Both the Democrats and the Republicans clearly demonstrated they are not worthy of my allegiance. But, what if a bunch of us 89% had showed up and voted in the primaries for someone else?
People get the government they deserve.
And, now we have the latest manifestation of this low-IQ individual being in the driver's seat. I'm sure you've read or heard about Trump tweeting that climate change is a good thing and we need more of it because the eastern US is gripped by record cold. This means we have a president who doesn't even know the difference between weather and climate making the key decisions on the matter. Plenty of sources rushed to try and educate him, but to no avail. Quite simply, Trump is not intelligent enough to understand the science, so he rejects it. Oh, by the way, what ever happened to climate change being a hoax? How can climate change be a good thing when he's already declared it's a hoax?
And, of course, the are of the country experiencing the cold is actually a small area on the planetary scale. Take a look at this plot of temperature anomalies in the western part of the northern hemisphere, including the US. The red areas are warmer than normal, the blue ones are colder than normal.
 |
| Source: CCI |
The red areas are clearly more extensive than the blue ones.
What was that about a hoax?
Monday, September 11, 2017
Yes, this is the right time to talk about climate change
Scott Pruitt, head of the EPA, has stated that now is not the time to discuss whether or not Hurricanes Harvey and Irma are partly the result of climate change. This is not surprising. Scott Pruitt is one of the most corrupt people in Washington (and that's saying a lot) and is under investigation for lying during his Senate confirmation hearing. It is documented that he would take donations from fossil fuel companies, only to conduct private communications with those same companies before acting in their favor, even so far as to submit a letter to the US Interior Secretary on the letterhead of the Oklahoma Attorney General's office, which Pruitt was head of, even though it was written by Devon Energy. He is strongly anti-science and, even though he is charged with protecting it, has a record of hating the environment. It is, therefore, not surprising that he doesn't want to discuss science.
But, he's wrong. this is the right time to discuss climate change and it's effects on the twin disasters. In fact, it is our moral responsibility to discuss it in the light of what is happening. People are dying and suffering and we need to start acting to help prevent this from happening again. What the Trump administration, and anti-science people everywhere, want is to hide until the public attention moves to something else. They don't want to have to answer to the public about how they have acted all these years to prevent exactly this kind of occurrence. By denying the reality of climate change, they prevented actions from being taken to address the problems. The amount of human suffering is directly on their heads, and they know it. Now, they don't want to face reality. Why should they? They have been denying it all along.
But, the discussions are happening, whether they want them or not. The media is pointing out the science connecting the hurricanes to climate science, and this is a good thing. I'll have more to say on Harvey and Irma in a future post, but I wanted to bring your attention to a couple of well written editorials. Amazingly enough, one of them is in the fashion magazine Vogue. Even fashion people understand science better than the head of the EPA.
This is the editorial in Vogue:
And, this one is in the New York Times:
But, he's wrong. this is the right time to discuss climate change and it's effects on the twin disasters. In fact, it is our moral responsibility to discuss it in the light of what is happening. People are dying and suffering and we need to start acting to help prevent this from happening again. What the Trump administration, and anti-science people everywhere, want is to hide until the public attention moves to something else. They don't want to have to answer to the public about how they have acted all these years to prevent exactly this kind of occurrence. By denying the reality of climate change, they prevented actions from being taken to address the problems. The amount of human suffering is directly on their heads, and they know it. Now, they don't want to face reality. Why should they? They have been denying it all along.
But, the discussions are happening, whether they want them or not. The media is pointing out the science connecting the hurricanes to climate science, and this is a good thing. I'll have more to say on Harvey and Irma in a future post, but I wanted to bring your attention to a couple of well written editorials. Amazingly enough, one of them is in the fashion magazine Vogue. Even fashion people understand science better than the head of the EPA.
This is the editorial in Vogue:
And, this one is in the New York Times:
In the meantime, do what you can to help the people who are suffering from these twin hurricanes. If the anti-science right gets its way, you could be a victim of climate change yourself in the next few years.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Surprise! Fossil Fuel Companies Favor Staying in Paris Accord
Donald Trump demonstrated just how much he hates science with his proposed budget for 2018 that included a 30% cut in the EPA, among other cuts for science funding. This, of course, follows on the heels of appointing the EPA-hater Scott Pruitt as head of that agency. All of the hedging is gone. There can be no doubt any more - Trump hates science and he hates the environment. So, it is a little surprising he hasn't already bailed on the Paris Accord to limit greenhouse gas emissions. You would have thought it would have been done some time ago. Now, we may know the reason why. The fossil fuel industry doesn't want him to.
Read that last line again. It's the fossil fuel industry that is encouraging him to stay in the accord.
There is an interesting quote from an industry insider near the bottom,
This presents an interesting dilemma for the fossil fuel industry. They want the US to stay in the Paris Accord but, at the same time, provide funding for the anti-science advocates to prevent any actions being taken. They are, in fact, working both sides of the table.
In the end, regulations will be put into place to limit greenhouse gas emissions. People like Trump and Pruitt and organizations like Heartland Institute will all fall to the wayside. The only question is how long will it take.
Read that last line again. It's the fossil fuel industry that is encouraging him to stay in the accord.
There is an interesting quote from an industry insider near the bottom,
"The independents are anti-climate change ... all this stuff costs them money. The global companies operate all over the world. They have to operate at one standard - the highest standard - wherever they operate.”Ah! Now it's starting to make sense. I don't think the international corporations care about the environment any more than the small independents. I'm sure they would gladly throw out all regulations and pollute to the maximum extent possible if they thought it would improve their profits. But, they have to work with international laws, not just US regulations. It is easier, and more profitable, to have one set of regulations instead of multiple ones. The locals don't care about the international laws anymore than they care about the environment. They will pollute as much as they can get away with and chaff at any kind of regulation that might impact their profits.
This presents an interesting dilemma for the fossil fuel industry. They want the US to stay in the Paris Accord but, at the same time, provide funding for the anti-science advocates to prevent any actions being taken. They are, in fact, working both sides of the table.
In the end, regulations will be put into place to limit greenhouse gas emissions. People like Trump and Pruitt and organizations like Heartland Institute will all fall to the wayside. The only question is how long will it take.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)