(12-15-2016 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A government institution should be non-partisan, as in, it doesn't care if you are left, right, up, or down. It doesn't mean it should provide equal funding to all ideas out there just to seem fair.

Tell that to the Department of Justice these days. (Or for that matter, in another mode, the Department of Justice in the Reagan era, or (pick your President) era)

Sorry, I fully realize and have come to expect for "government institutions" to not be non-partisan, but to execute the policy of the President or the Congress, as the case may be. Your comment above makes little to no sense in the pragmatic world.

I find it interesting that most liberals are now calling for such "non-partisan" paths in these institutions now that the President-elect now does not adhere to their own personal politics or philosophies.

I brought this up not because of the direction of research for the DOE, but because of what seemed like a witch hunt to identify certain employees due to their belief/interests... I fully understand and accept that the DOE focus will likely shift away from renewables and I get why that may happen, but I don't think we should be asking people to wear a scarlet letter because they attended a climate change conference.

And now calling for this? I just stated how these institutions should operate with respect to its own employees. How does what you commented even connect to that?

(12-15-2016 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A government institution should be non-partisan, as in, it doesn't care if you are left, right, up, or down. It doesn't mean it should provide equal funding to all ideas out there just to seem fair.

Tell that to the Department of Justice these days. (Or for that matter, in another mode, the Department of Justice in the Reagan era, or (pick your President) era)

Sorry, I fully realize and have come to expect for "government institutions" to not be non-partisan, but to execute the policy of the President or the Congress, as the case may be. Your comment above makes little to no sense in the pragmatic world.

I find it interesting that most liberals are now calling for such "non-partisan" paths in these institutions now that the President-elect now does not adhere to their own personal politics or philosophies.

I brought this up not because of the direction of research for the DOE, but because of what seemed like a witch hunt to identify certain employees due to their belief/interests... I fully understand and accept that the DOE focus will likely shift away from renewables and I get why that may happen, but I don't think we should be asking people to wear a scarlet letter because they attended a climate change conference.

And now calling for this? I just stated how these institutions should operate with respect to its own employees. How does what you commented even connect to that?

Do you really think that the Obama (or for that matter any other presidential) administration has not "slow tracked" administration employees based upon their beliefs? Or not sidetracked careers?

I'm just saying that is par for the course within supposedly civil servant jobs, and has been for decades (i.e. many other administrations aside from Obama). Now, you seem, to quote a famous movie, "shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" I mean, how DARE they find out who the people are inside of the department who adhere to certain beliefs.....

But I guess since it is Trump's administration, it should be de riguer to be outraged over issues like this.

One great thing that will fall out of this soon to be Trump administration is how concerned people will now get over the massive rise in executive power over the last 20 years. It will be nice that that aspect will be somewhat policed by the media at this point.

(12-15-2016 04:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 02:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 02:34 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A government institution should be non-partisan, as in, it doesn't care if you are left, right, up, or down. It doesn't mean it should provide equal funding to all ideas out there just to seem fair.

Tell that to the Department of Justice these days. (Or for that matter, in another mode, the Department of Justice in the Reagan era, or (pick your President) era)

Sorry, I fully realize and have come to expect for "government institutions" to not be non-partisan, but to execute the policy of the President or the Congress, as the case may be. Your comment above makes little to no sense in the pragmatic world.

I find it interesting that most liberals are now calling for such "non-partisan" paths in these institutions now that the President-elect now does not adhere to their own personal politics or philosophies.

I brought this up not because of the direction of research for the DOE, but because of what seemed like a witch hunt to identify certain employees due to their belief/interests... I fully understand and accept that the DOE focus will likely shift away from renewables and I get why that may happen, but I don't think we should be asking people to wear a scarlet letter because they attended a climate change conference.

And now calling for this? I just stated how these institutions should operate with respect to its own employees. How does what you commented even connect to that?

Do you really think that the Obama (or for that matter any other presidential) administration has not "slow tracked" administration employees based upon their beliefs? Or not sidetracked careers?

I'm just saying that is par for the course within supposedly civil servant jobs, and has been for decades (i.e. many other administrations aside from Obama). Now, you seem, to quote a famous movie, "shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" I mean, how DARE they find out who the people are inside of the department who adhere to certain beliefs.....

But I guess since it is Trump's administration, it should be de riguer to be outraged over issues like this.

One great thing that will fall out of this soon to be Trump administration is how concerned people will now get over the massive rise in executive power over the last 20 years. It will be nice that that aspect will be somewhat policed by the media at this point.

I'm sure in every agency internal politics play a role in who moves up and down, but I don't think there is anything systemic about it because it would be too hard to make something systemic with all of those moving parts. In an office of 20, it's easy to systemically choose the beliefs of people around you. But in the 10's of thousands? No way to get everyone on board from top to bottom. I've done enough work in my short career with government institutions to recognize that hard left and hard right, and everyone in between, works at all of our departments.

The issue is that it reeks of a hit list of people to go after, causing regular, everyday employees to fear for their jobs just because they went to a meeting. Should that be an environment we want to foster?

The AGU, the same organization that supported the scientist we discussed earlier and his findings, has the same feeling about this questionnaire (which by the way, the Trump transition team has now backing away from and saying it wasn't authorized).

And secondly, I found an interesting tid-bit about academic presupposition.

Quote:In late 2010, the Obama administration issued governmentwide “scientific integrity” guidelines aimed at shielding federal scientists from political interference, part of an effort to distinguish itself from the Bush administration. The four-page memo, written by John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, included a prohibition against agency leaders or public affairs officers asking or demanding federal scientists to alter or suppress their findings. It also instructed agencies to “involve science and technology experts where appropriate” to craft “policymaking of the highest integrity.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ener..._alert-hse

So if a federally funded research program finds claims against climate change, the administration legally can't suppress/alter the findings. This was enacted due to complaints that W's administration had done just that, and scientists were barred from speaking to the media about their work.

There is always hypocrisy from both sides as the winning team transitions, but I don't see this being one of those cases. Just look at all the moaning over Obama's golf game when Bush spent so much time at his ranch. Or Obama and his executive orders, when Bush did more of them. I do expect there to be some from the left as well during the Trump presidency (and I agree that executive orders will probably be one of them).

Well, if there's an integrity memo, everything must be great.

(12-15-2016 06:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Well, if there's an integrity memo, everything must be great.

Obviously not. But I think publicly stating support for results, regardless of outcome (e.g. explicitly saying we won't change results) is probably reassuring for those who think their research contradicts beliefs.

Is it better or worse that the memo was released?

(12-10-2016 09:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

Quote:For climate scientists, climate change is almost exclusively denied by people outside the field.

When you say "field", what exactly do you define as that? From my understanding most "climate scientists" typically have backgrounds in physics, chemistry, mathematics, geological sciences, or applied mathematics, as opposed to a traditional degree in "climate science". (some do, though, such as Gavin Schmidt...)

Most of the vocal skeptics I am aware of have exactly those same types of degrees and the same study fields as those who write and edit for realclimate.org.

(Pat Michaels, Ian Plimer, Pielke Jr, Itoh, Happer, Giaver, Dyson to name a few of the more well known ones...)
Sorry, don't buy your broad barnstroke of a brushoff there.

But your views are telegraphed precisely when equating any skeptic with a flat earther in your first sentence of your reply, I guess.

At least I'm not the only one comparing people in the climate change debate to flat earthers. Ironically through, in this example it's the other way around.

Quote:Scaramucci continued, “There was an overwhelming science that the Earth was flat, and there was an overwhelming science that we were the center of the world. We get a lot of things wrong in the scientific community.”

... And theories like geocentrism were, in fact, overturned by the development of new scientific practices and technologies that allowed for better observation of the world — much the way modern advancements have helped expose the changes that are occurring in the world’s climate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ener...ef078d9c90

Made me chuckle.

(12-15-2016 06:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote:Scaramucci continued, “There was an overwhelming science that the Earth was flat, and there was an overwhelming science that we were the center of the world. We get a lot of things wrong in the scientific community.”

I'm not sure there ever was "an overwhelming science that the earth was flat", at least not in recorded history. Even rudimentary observation teaches that the earth is round, a fact which was probably understood since the beginning of philosophy. Eratosthenes famously calculated the spherical circumference of the earth in about 200 BC, and while the calculation remains renowned for its elegance and accuracy, its premise that the earth is a sphere does not seem to have been controversial or new-fangled at the time -- quite the opposite.

And the whole Columbus bit: the reason people were skeptical of his idea sailing west to Asia is not because they thought the ships would fall off some cosmic edge, but because the route involved sailing a tremendous distance across completely unknown waters. One reason Columbus was eager to try it is that he significantly under-estimated the distance.

(12-16-2016 04:10 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 06:50 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

Quote:Scaramucci continued, “There was an overwhelming science that the Earth was flat, and there was an overwhelming science that we were the center of the world. We get a lot of things wrong in the scientific community.”

I'm not sure there ever was "an overwhelming science that the earth was flat", at least not in recorded history. Even rudimentary observation teaches that the earth is round, a fact which was probably understood since the beginning of philosophy. Eratosthenes famously calculated the spherical circumference of the earth in about 200 BC, and while the calculation remains renowned for its elegance and accuracy, its premise that the earth is a sphere does not seem to have been controversial or new-fangled at the time -- quite the opposite.

And the whole Columbus bit: the reason people were skeptical of his idea sailing west to Asia is not because they thought the ships would fall off some cosmic edge, but because the route involved sailing a tremendous distance across completely unknown waters. One reason Columbus was eager to try it is that he significantly under-estimated the distance.

Yep. That's why I found it so ironic that someone tried comparing round-earthers to people who believe human activity is accelerating climate change.

I approve the appointment of Walter White as head of the DEA.

I saw Woolsey on the News Hour the other day looking VERY uncomfortable defending/explaining Trump's tweets against the intelligence community. Not surprised he resigned.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/j...index.html

I will say again that the single scariest nominee so far is Flynn. Guy appears to be completely bonkers AND he has Trump's ear...

(12-20-2016 04:28 PM)elf owl Wrote:  I approve the appointment of Walter White as head of the DEA.

Well, he has the science background and experience with law enforcement.

Now Trump has said that Mexico will "pay us back later" for the wall.

(01-06-2017 03:40 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  Now Trump has said that Mexico will "pay us back later" for the wall.

What do we want?
A Wall!

When do we want it?
Now!

Who is going to pay for it?
Mexico!
(Well, after we pay to construct it and then at some point we'll make then pay us back.)

I have said from the git-go that The Wall is a stupid response that would not work, regardless of who pays, or how, or when.

Yet he hilariously tweeted about the "dishonest media" because they didn't report his "Mexico will pay us back later" claim (denied by Mexico) as fact and instead reported, you know, actual facts. So dishonest! Sad!

(01-06-2017 06:19 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Yet he hilariously tweeted about the "dishonest media" because they didn't report his "Mexico will pay us back later" claim (denied by Mexico) as fact and instead reported, you know, actual facts. So dishonest! Sad!

Everybody is for the media when it is on their side and against it when it is not. Didn't Hillary blame the media?

My bad, it was Podesta

And Andrea Mitchell

You make a good point about hypocrisy in politics, OO. It is the thing that I hate most in modern politics. I know it has always existed, but I feel that it is at fever pitch in recent years.

Where I perceive it most is in the use of tu quoque arguments, which, ironically, involves a person calling out his opponent's hypocrisy. But it's a vicious cycle.

Because the Democrats are on the losing side these days, they are left with the main weapon of the person in the submissive position: complaining. The Republicans, as the dominant/winner these days, want to justify their actions, and too often it is an appeal to tu quoque arguments: "Well, X number of years ago, you did this, too!"

Should Republicans lose either house of Congress or the White House in the coming years, look for the roles to be reversed. Republicans will wail and howl, and Democrats will say, "But you did the same exact thing in 2016 that you're complaining about now!"

It's a lame argument no matter who lodges it. This is part of the reason why Congress's approval rating has hit such lows in recent years. Rhetoric is about winning, regardless of the merits. And that's all our politicians care about.

EDIT: Found this interesting version of tu quoque argument on Wiki: "And you are lynching negroes"

But to be clear: Trump's claim that Mexico will pay for The Great Wall was dumb, and I would bet he has no idea on how to get Mexico to pay for it. If this were a litigation matter, I'd label it fraudulent inducement: inducing another to enter into a contract (or provide a vote, as in this case) by providing a promise that you know is false or likely to be false.

If a Democrat does the same thing (which I'm sure has happened and will continue to happen--I know some would point to Obama and ACA), they should be called out on it, too.

No matter who does it, it's bullsh-t.

(01-09-2017 06:35 PM)Barrett Wrote:  But to be clear: Trump's claim that Mexico will pay for The Great Wall was dumb,

Agree.

I really doubt this was nefarious, but Sessions just made his confirmation much more difficult by failing to disclose the nature of some oil leases that he holds.

In fact, I think he really screwed the pooch a bit because, just like McConnell, he went a bit too far previously with an Obama nominee for almost the exact same thing, and I don't think Dems are going to roll over. That's because in 2010, he was integral in writing a letter about Goodwin Liu (in relation to him not disclosing all of his academic papers) that said:

“At best, this nominee’s extraordinary disregard for the Committee’s constitutional role demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that he knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the Committee,”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...6c090fb0f8