Trump orders EPA to delete all climate change information from its website

[Xing]

FFS, this is not a game. If we don't address climate change seriously, MILLIONS of lives will be at stake from flooding, an increase in natural disasters, and droughts. When Bernie Sanders claimed that climate change is a moral issue, he was absolutely right. I'll say it: Ignoring climate change, or worse yet, trying to suppress information about it is morally unacceptable. Trump is endangering the entire planet, and for what? So that he can claim that he's "telling off" us lefties? Yeah, totally a good cause. I'm sure that the millions of people who either die or become refugees from global flooding will be very understanding, since pissing off liberals is totally worth f***ing over the planet. Conservatives, if there is one issue where I beg you to consider pushing back against Trump, it is climate change. This is much bigger than any of us, and denying reality for the sake of political expediency is wrong. You know that.

[Xing]

FFS, this is not a game. If we don't address climate change seriously, MILLIONS of lives will be at stake from flooding, an increase in natural disasters, and droughts. When Bernie Sanders claimed that climate change is a moral issue, he was absolutely right. I'll say it: Ignoring climate change, or worse yet, trying to suppress information about it is morally unacceptable. Trump is endangering the entire planet, and for what? So that he can claim that he's "telling off" us lefties? Yeah, totally a good cause. I'm sure that the millions of people who either die or become refugees from global flooding will be very understanding, since pissing off liberals is totally worth f***ing over the planet. Conservatives, if there is one issue where I beg you to consider pushing back against Trump, it is climate change. This is much bigger than any of us, and denying reality for the sake of political expediency is wrong. You know that.

Nobody is trying to suppress information. Quite the opposite.

We are no longer going to allow domination of only one school of thought, suppressing the dissenting voices. There will no longer be an official truth. A dogma imposed on everybody at the pain of social exclusion.

Provable facts are not dogma. I can't claim that 2+2=5 is just as valid of a school of thought as 2+2=4, and accuse people of saying otherwise of dominating the narrative with dogma. Among those who have studied climate science, there is no debate. The debate is on how severe climate change will  be, which is partially contingent on the choices we make.

We can debate how to address climate change, which policies are the most effective, and how to prepare for the impact of it. What we should not be debating are scientific facts, which do not change based on how we feel or which political party believes them to be true. The reality of climate change is not contingent upon what Donald Trump claims about it.

[Xing]

FFS, this is not a game. If we don't address climate change seriously, MILLIONS of lives will be at stake from flooding, an increase in natural disasters, and droughts. When Bernie Sanders claimed that climate change is a moral issue, he was absolutely right. I'll say it: Ignoring climate change, or worse yet, trying to suppress information about it is morally unacceptable. Trump is endangering the entire planet, and for what? So that he can claim that he's "telling off" us lefties? Yeah, totally a good cause. I'm sure that the millions of people who either die or become refugees from global flooding will be very understanding, since pissing off liberals is totally worth f***ing over the planet. Conservatives, if there is one issue where I beg you to consider pushing back against Trump, it is climate change. This is much bigger than any of us, and denying reality for the sake of political expediency is wrong. You know that.

Nobody is trying to suppress information. Quite the opposite.

We are no longer going to allow domination of only one school of thought, suppressing the dissenting voices. There will no longer be an official truth. A dogma imposed on everybody at the pain of social exclusion.

Provable facts are not dogma. I can't claim that 2+2=5 is just as valid of a school of thought as 2+2=4, and accuse people of saying otherwise of dominating the narrative with dogma. Among those who have studied climate science, there is no debate. The debate is on how severe climate change will  be, which is partially contingent on the choices we make.

We can debate how to address climate change, which policies are the most effective, and how to prepare for the impact of it. What we should not be debating are scientific facts, which do not change based on how we feel or which political party believes them to be true. The reality of climate change is not contingent upon what Donald Trump claims about it.

It is not provable. You are completely dogmatized.


Let me quote from one of the articles provided by Arch:


How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn’t change the results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, complex global climate models, the huge computer programs that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.



As you can see, even the scientist proposed by Arch cannot prove any of that. He has not been able to devise an experiment that would prove causation. The most he can claim is correlation and then challenge everybody else to come up with a better correlation.

I am sorry, but that's not science.

Why don't you look up the definition of "dogma" before hurling insults? If I said that climate change was real regardless of evidence or findings, that would be dogma. And if scientists were to find a cooling trend over the next five years, a reduction in CO2 in the atmosphere, and an abrupt end to the trend of polar ice caps melting at increasingly high rates in the summer, they'd have to seriously rework their theory at the least, and skeptics would have a lot of evidence on their side. And indeed, it's one thing to be skeptical of climate change, and believe that projections of the impact of climate change are overblown. It's another to call climate change a hoax, and call for the deletion of information relevant to it. That attitude is much closer to what we would call "dogma."

The sad truth is that recent findings suggest that initial projections about the impact of climate change may actually be too conservative, and consequences could be more severe than expected. These projections are estimates, that is true, but if your only evidence backing by up your position is a argument over the semantics of the word "prove", you may need to rethink your position. If Trump said tomorrow that climate change is real and serious, would you suddenly find yourself embracing that position instead?