No. Its that you are invested in showing me your light, and not seeing any others.
You have confidence in predictive modeling. I don’t.
You have confidence in the integrity of the scientists that have written those predictive models. I don’t.
Maybe we’ve known or had different conversations with different scientists o the subject. I’ve directly asked one what their (a professor of env. sci.) thoughts of the models used that were so hotly contested a few years ago, and the answer I got was far from inspiring of confidence.
Now, say I meet a mathematician of the caliber of Activities Guy, and he says “You know Skys, I helped construct and test the most current models that are being used by the [alphabet organization], and they are rock solid. This shit is absolutely happening.”, I would 100% change my views on it. And honestly, considering the intellectual talent pool we have around here- That could totally happen next week.
But until that happens, I just can’t take any of it too damn seriously. Then once you throw in the politicization and emotional appeals, the subject is toast. It becomes complete horseshit. The worst thing that has ever happened to the study of climate change is its politicization.
So that leaves the accusation that I let partisan politics cloud my judgement. Lets think about that for a second. There’s an almost 50/50 chance that I’ll fall on one side or the other regardless of what I think, and almost 100% chance that it will be either. Thats about as damned if you do or damned if you don’t as something can get, and I don’t like getting caught up in other peoples emotional/political frays, so I remain skeptical.
And who doesn’t want a nice Kristoff with their coffee on a Sunday morning? Come on man!
“But the president went a lot further than that. He said that the ‘fake media,’ not certain stories, the ‘fake media,’ are an enemy to the country. We don’t have a state-run media in this country. That’s what they have in dictatorships,” Wallace continued.
Priebus argued that “other cable stations, not necessarily Fox,” only briefly covered events like Trump’s meetings with foreign leaders and announcement of the president’s Supreme Court nominee, saying outlets instead focused on ties between Russia and the Trump campaign “all day long, on every chyron, every seven minutes.”
“As soon as it was over, the next 20 hours is all about Russian spies, how no one gets along, how nothing’s happening. Give me a break,” Priebus said.
“You don’t get to tell us what to do, Reince. You don’t get to tell us what to do any more than Barack Obama did. Barack Obama whined about Fox News all the time, but I’ve got to say, he never said we were an enemy of the people,” Wallace replied.
After Priebus said he was “surprised” Wallace would forget “all the shots” that Obama took at Fox News, the anchor interjected.
“He took the shots, and we didn’t like them, and frankly, we don’t like this either. But he never went as far as President Trump has. And that’s what’s concerning. Because it seems like he crosses a line when he says that we’re the enemy of the people,” Wallace said.
EDIT: Here’s the video. Props to Wallace for calling Priebus on his bullshit.
I don’t know how you guys feel…but something will have to eventually give.
Running this Country is pressure enough…but this Administration seems to also see Boogeymen, Vandals and Huns (real of not) around every corner; especially within both the Intelligence Community and the “true” enemies, the Press.
Every time I see Trump or one of his surrogates…I get this “Nixon-ish” vibe of paranoia on steroids.
It’s only less than 2 months in. They simply can’t keep this up. Someone, (or someones), will eventually break. They are human.
If Trump played and used “the Media” to his advantage to get elected; can’t he do the same now?
Trump HAS to stop the public spats with the Intelligence Community; take a deep breath; and begin to select his battles.
I think I gave a pretty compelling reason why the author’s comparison was inapt. Now, if we come to discover that the current leakers are being paid by the Russians (say, to sow discord and undermine Trump’s presidency), I will happily acknowledge that the comparison is entirely fair.
Very familiar. My parents own irrigated farmland directly downstream from the Gold King Mine. My in laws also own land in the area, although not farmland. EPIC EPA FAIL on so many levels. EPA failure to notify the public. STUNNING. And all the butt covering that went into it? If any of us did that, either as private individuals, or owners of a business, the fines alone would have ruined us, AND we’d likely be doing time in prison. For any of you who want to know more about it, here you go.
GOOD GRIEF!! Thank you for the clarification. I was about to loose it.
Regarding the polarization, or “playing politics with the environment,” I’ll try to address my thoughts on a bit of that in the Paris Climate thread when I get a chance. I’m no expert, but I can tell you at least SOME of why the numbers we see quoted around differ so much. I’ll try to do it without being partisan, since I can find examples of BOTH parties doing it.
Just an idea.
Some of you are talking in very general terms about “the government.” And also blending AGW science with talk about mediation, and the economics of it. Some of you have taken an interest in the science part. Maybe you’re less opinionated about what exactly you like or dislike about specific legislation in the US? We can’t follow everything, but people’s opinions about the one tend to spill over into all the other ares. For example, some of @SkyzykS talk has been about how the economics of it are playing out in his local area.
Attacking the hell out of him on the science end, when many of his comments are a blend of all of the issues. Local effects of environmental policy is it’s own issue, as are the economics of amelioration on a global vs national vs state level. Knowing about megawatt costs, and why some states are being NAILED by the new regs is very different than talking about AGW science in general.
Aragorn said some of this better in the other thread, but I think it explains some of the lack of communication here.
The talk of a pivot has been discussed for a long time now. It’s not going to happen. Trump will not change his stripes. The only thing that will give the illusion of a pivot is by him staying quiet. I definitely don’t see that happening either.
No, certainly not, and I’m in the same boat as you - there’s a lot of bad government in environmental policy. And I think this touches on @Aragorn’s point - too many people in charge of environmental policy know the government must have a monopoly in this stuff, and so they start acting like monopolists do, being uncompromising bullies and acting uninterested in anyone else’s view re: trade-offs at issue in the policy.
I didn’t get bogged down by that comparison, because the article was about agents making a lifelong pledge to maintaining secrecy and to follow laws - irrespective of personal political positions.
His summation is that it one of the most dangerous things that can happen in a government.
Not sure what you think the gist of his writing is.
Great movie coming out…you will laugh you will cry…but mostly cry
How to Lose a Democracy in 10 Days
Vlad is a rakish autocrat who bets his buddies that he could get any American president to do whatever he wants using only extremely incriminating information. Donald is a bored, thrill-seeking presidential candidate who bets his friends he can alienate most of America and still win… and adds a side bet that he can destroy America in just 10 days! Vlad and Donald meet, sparks fly, and America loses its “full democracy” status in less than a week. Sometimes, Donald learns, keeping your promises is the most “thrilling” thing of all!
For as long as I can remember, when I see the word chaos, in my head I hear it pronounced CHAY-ose. I have to consciously remind myself of the correct pronunciation literally every time I see it.
Similarly, awry. Scans as AW-ree for me, again since childhood.
