Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 56789
Results 121 to 123 of 123

Thread: OT: Trump/Russians/Robert Mueller

  1. #121
    Call88 - bonus points for misdirection. If you're not a Trump apologist, I can't wait til an apologist comes along.

    No one claimed there were no STEM majors in Trump's administration, even "way up". You give Trump credit for Tillerson's undergrad degree but don't acknowledge McCarthy has an MS in engineering. I'm not sure how Tillerson's undergrad degree shows any commitment to science but I do think the fact that the Trump administration is suppressing the display of climate change science on the EPA website, etc. is telling. Pruitt was not appointed to the EPA in order to ensure that the EPA is science-driven. And let's not forget that Trump claimed the concept of global warming was created by and for (his good friends) the Chinese to make US manufacturing less competitive which is both non-sensical and unsupported.

    Now let's talk about the Department of Energy. The last 3 heads of the DoE were PhDs from Cal, Furd, MIT (one a nobel prize winner from Cal - Go Bears!). According to Trump, Rick Perry started wearing glasses to appear smart. And I can't talk about Rick Perry's intelligence without reminding everyone he got a D in Meats.

    So I think it's fair to question Trump's hostility to science and your defense is not credible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cal88 View Post
    Trump replaced social anthropologist/policy planner Gina McCarthy at the head of the EPA with lawyer Scott Pruitt.

    Rick Perry as head of the DoE is a lightweight, granted, but you have Tillerson (UT Civil Engineer and Exxon CEO) way up in his administration.

    This being said, the concept of being pro or anti-science is a reductive, politically biased notion.

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Cal88 View Post
    -has avoided military escalation in Syria, so far at least (knock on wood)
    -Tillerson is a good SoS, not an ideological neocon

    Minus column:
    -detente with Russia/disengagement in the ME and EE/Peace dividend not quite implemented, though the insane domestic political turmoil around this issue is partially to blame
    Did you receive Russia's Order of Friendship like Tillerson Did? If not, you need a better agent.

    I edited down your comments above for brevity:
    Syria - we have escalated in Syria. We are killing more civilians now and we have also now bombed both sides in the Civil War under Trump. We have also escalated in Yemen and Afghanistan
    Tillerson- is the swamp and Putin loves him.
    Detente with Russia - very good suggestion, comrade. I guess you don't care about foreign powers meddling in America's elections.

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by Unit2Sucks View Post
    Call88 - bonus points for misdirection. If you're not a Trump apologist, I can't wait til an apologist comes along.

    No one claimed there were no STEM majors in Trump's administration, even "way up". You give Trump credit for Tillerson's undergrad degree but don't acknowledge McCarthy has an MS in engineering. I'm not sure how Tillerson's undergrad degree shows any commitment to science but I do think the fact that the Trump administration is suppressing the display of climate change science on the EPA website, etc. is telling. Pruitt was not appointed to the EPA in order to ensure that the EPA is science-driven. And let's not forget that Trump claimed the concept of global warming was created by and for (his good friends) the Chinese to make US manufacturing less competitive which is both non-sensical and unsupported.

    Now let's talk about the Department of Energy. The last 3 heads of the DoE were PhDs from Cal, Furd, MIT (one a nobel prize winner from Cal - Go Bears!). According to Trump, Rick Perry started wearing glasses to appear smart. And I can't talk about Rick Perry's intelligence without reminding everyone he got a D in Meats.

    So I think it's fair to question Trump's hostility to science and your defense is not credible.

    McCarthy has a masters degree in "Environmental Health Engineering and Planning and Policy" from Tufts. Technically that is an MS in Engineering, but it's a glorified MPPM degree, not a real engineering masters degree. Here is the curriculum (link). It's the kind of diploma non-STEM grads get to bolster their scientific credentials without having to take any courses in thermodynamics or mechanics.

    You might want to scroll back one page and review the rest of your post which was finished while I was adding a pretty damning proof of EPA/DoE political manipulation of science under Obama.

    There's no denying that someone like Chu is among the brightest scientists around, yet his opinions on climate change are primarily a reflection of his political convictions and policy objectives, and also because he's not a climate scientist. He's a "team player" in terms of the global warming line. He's argued that California was in a state of permanent drought because of CO2 emissions:

    “I don’t think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen,” he said. “We’re looking at a scenario where there’s no more agriculture in California.” And, he added, “I don’t actually see how they can keep their cities going” either.”

    I guess even a Cal Nobel Prize can be wrong.

    Chu has also argued that a unilateral reduction in US CO2 emissions would have a significant effect on future climate, despite scientific data pointing to the contrary (link).

    Trump is absolutely right on the impact of treaties like the Paris accord on US manufacturing competitiveness, relative to China and other nations. Self-imposed carbon taxes on US manufacturers would be the final blow.

    The architects of the global warming crisis management were people like IPCC founder Maurice Strong, whose oligarch backers he represents (Rockefellers, Demarais,...) were deeply invested in China going back to the early 1990s, they were behind the push to set up China as a global manufacturing center, and made tens of billions from investments like their stake in Citic.

    There is quite a bit more to this subject than the reductive stances you would see in the recent "pro-science" protest march.
    Last edited by Cal88; Today at 05:31 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •