The Trump administration’s suspicion of science claims another victim

[homersapien 11,388]

This is not in the country's long term interests.  Trump is setting us back.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/this-scientific-braintrust-is-needed-now-more-than-ever/2019/04/15/885a627a-5fa0-11e9-9ff2-abc984dc9eec_story.html?utm_term=.78754ac103a3

The Trump administration’s suspicion of science claims another victim

THE LAUNCH of Sputnik by the Soviet Union on Oct. 4, 1957, sent shockwaves through the United States, not the least of which was a fear of being overshadowed in science and technology. Physicists rose to the Cold War challenge. In 1960, a small group of them formed an independent organization, known as the Jasons, to help the U.S. government solve its most vexing technological problems. For more than six decades, the Jasons have labored every summer to tackle mind-bending challenges. Now, their future is in doubt.

On March 28, the Defense Department notified the MITRE Corp. that an expiring five-year contract for the Jasons would not be renewed because the “requirement has changed.” Only one study, on electronic warfare, is to be completed. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, revealed the decision at a hearing on April 9, and it was confirmed by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, as well as reports in Science and Nature . Mr. Cooper has asked the Pentagon to reconsider — and we agree.

If not reversed, the decision could effectively end a long and fruitful collaboration of the best and brightest scientists with the U.S. government. The candid advice of the Jasons, widely respected, has not always led to easy choices for policymakers, grappling with limited resources and political interests. The word of the Jasons may not be sitting well with an ideological administration like this one, so often at odds with scientists on climate change and other topics.

According to Nature, there are currently about 40 members of the Jasons, stellar academics with top-secret clearances, who spend the summer at La Jolla, Calif., working on 12 to 15 studies a year at a cost of $7 million to $8 million, including for the military, the intelligence agencies and the departments of Energy and Homeland Security. Ann Finkbeiner, author of “The Jasons: The Secret History of Science’s Postwar Elite,” a book about the group, documented their early work on thorny problems arising from the nuclear weapons age, such as the test ban and questions about defense against ballistic missiles. In later years, the Jasons broadened out; by the end of the 1980s, members included computer scientists, astronomers, geoscientists, mathematicians, materials scientists, engineers and oceanographers. The 1990s brought more attention to biology and cybersecurity. Many of the group’s studies are classified, but some are public. Ms. Finkbeiner says the name Jasons was conferred by Mildred Goldberger, wife of founding member Murph Goldberger, after the Greek myth, because she thought of the advisers as golden heroes.

Today’s technology enigmas are no less daunting than those of the 1960s: climate change, antibiotic resistance, cybersecurity, genetic engineering, privacy and more. It is wrong-headed to jettison a braintrust like the Jasons. The scientists serve out of a sense of duty to the nation. The United States imprudently abolished the Office of Technology Assessment two decades ago. It shouldn’t make a similar mistake now.

[Hspoprn 199]

Wrong forum for these kinds of throw-away responses.  See the post at the top of this forum for more details.  Thanks. - TitanTiger

[Hspoprn 199]

Apparently this is not a forum for healthy debate or disagreement, but merely a site where individuals with a certain political slant are free to express opinion and others are not. Sadly, this appears to be what the world has come to. Res Ipsa Loquitor. Have happy lives, everyone, I'm out of here.

War Eagle !

[TitanTiger 20,499]

11 hours ago, Hspoprn said:

Apparently this is not a forum for healthy debate or disagreement, but merely a site where individuals with a certain political slant are free to express opinion and others are not. Sadly, this appears to be what the world has come to. Res Ipsa Loquitor. Have happy lives, everyone, I'm out of here.

War Eagle !

I'd love to hear some healthy debate from you.  Let me know when you're ready to quit playing around and start.

You are free to post healthy debate and disagreement.  You are not free to just post snarky remarks in this forum. We have a smack talk forum for folks unable to post substantive responses.  Had you read the post about the differences in the two forums at the top of this one as I told you to, you would understand that.  If for some reason after reading it was still unclear to you, you could have asked for clarification instead of whining about it.

[AFTiger 282]

Actually, Trump is bringing science back to the government.

[homersapien 11,388]

You are seriously confused about what science is and isn't, much less what constitutes a valid, science-based prediction, which you didn't present.

That's exactly the sort of response I might expect from someone who equates science with political opinion.

And who in hell would deny the reality and value of science in the first place?  Do you really prefer magic and superstition?

 

[AFTiger 282]

Homer, you are the one in denial. You reject real science over a phenomenon that is clearly a natural function of nature.

The climate alarmism you support is clearly a political movement to impose leftist ideology upon its 

But you are wedded to your ideology never to be enlightened to the truth.

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

You are seriously confused about what science is and isn't, much less what constitutes a valid, science-based prediction, which you didn't present.

That's exactly the sort of response I might expect from someone who equates science with political opinion.

And who in hell would deny the reality and value of science in the first place?  Do you really prefer magic and superstition?

 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

20 hours ago, AFTiger said:

Homer, you are the one in denial. You reject real science over a phenomenon that is clearly a natural function of nature.

The climate alarmism you support is clearly a political movement to impose leftist ideology upon its 

But you are wedded to your ideology never to be enlightened to the truth.

 

Good grief. 

Do you consider pumping tons of greenhouse gases into the air since the dawn of the industrial age a "natural function of nature"?

You understand nothing about the science of AGW.  Nothing.

That's no sin, but simply denying the science facts without trying to educate yourself, is.  Please peruse this site.  It's written for laymen such as yourself:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/

This is a scientific issue, not a political one.  Drop the Kool Aid and stop listening to the right wing politicians who don't have a clue regarding the issue. All they know is who is giving them money.

Thank God the number of people who are in such a state of denial and ignorance is a relatively small percentage of our society, even though it includes our Dear Leader president.

We'll have 4 years of make-up work to do once we get his sorry ass out of office.

[AFTiger 282]

Homer, open you mind and hear the climate scientists that have the credentials and dispute much of the alarmists shouting.

What little CO2 there is has been countered by an increase in vegetation. 

Stop wallowing in the alarmist propaganda and listen to the scientists.

As for your accusation that I don't understand science,  I can cite your many denials to accuse you of the same. 

And don't throw your degrees and self promotion at me. You only show the educated are often wrong. 

[homersapien 11,388]

17 hours ago, AFTiger said:

Homer, open you mind and hear the climate scientists that have the credentials and dispute much of the alarmists shouting.

What little CO2 there is has been countered by an increase in vegetation. 

Stop wallowing in the alarmist propaganda and listen to the scientists.

As for your accusation that I don't understand science,  I can cite your many denials to accuse you of the same. 

And don't throw your degrees and self promotion at me. You only show the educated are often wrong. 

 

A handful of paid hacks working for the oil companies and the Koch brothers do not constitute serious opposition to AGW.

Please read the following.  It references the studies on agreement.  They also explain what is meant by scientific consensus.

https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

 

But you believe what you want to.  I'll stick to the science.

It's obvious we cannot communicate on the same plane of reference.  It's the difference between motivated reasoning and recognizing reality. 

 

[AFTiger 282]

Thanks for verifying my point. The 97% consensus has been debunked many times over.

Here is one.

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

Stay away from the propaganda sites and study real science. 

The hacks you refer to are bonafide  scientists. Go here to see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

[homersapien 11,388]

2 minutes ago, AFTiger said:

Thanks for verifying my point. The 97% consensus has been debunked many times over.

Here is one.

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

Stay away from the propaganda sites and study real science. 

The hacks you refer to are bonafide  scientists. Go here to see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

First, "explicitly agreeing" with a 2001 IPCC declaration says very little about the consensus on AGW, not least of which it being 18 years old.

Secondly, the hacks I am referring to are on the payroll of the Koch foundation, Heartland Institute,  and like organizations.   But how about picking out one and let's discuss his work in detail.

OK, from that wikipedia link (emphasis mine):

The scientific consensus is that the global average surface temperature has risen over the last century. Scientific opinion on climate change was summarized in the 2001 Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The main conclusions on global warming at that time were as follows:

1. The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the years 1971–2001.^[5]
2. "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.^[6]
3. If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100.^[A] Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.^[7] The balance of impacts of global warming become significantly negative at larger values of warming.^[8]

These findings are recognized by the national science academies of all the major industrialized nations;^[9] the consensus has strengthened over time^[10] and is now virtually unanimous.^[11] The level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science.^[12]

There have been several efforts to compile lists of dissenting scientists, including a 2008 US senate minority report,^[13] the Oregon Petition,^[14] and a 2007 list by the Heartland Institute,^[15]all three of which have been criticized on a number of grounds.^[16][17][18]

For the purpose of this list, a "scientist" is defined as an individual who has published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences, although not necessarily in a field relevant to climatology. Since the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, each has made a clear statement in his or her own words (as opposed to the name being found on a petition, etc.) disagreeing with one or more of the report's three main conclusions, and each has been described in reliable sources as a climate skeptic, denier, or in disagreement with any of the three main conclusions. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles. Few of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature; most are from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

(Big difference in criticizing model accuracy and saying AGW doesn't exist.) 

I also question the information in this article based on date.  A lot can change in 18 years of climate research.

Rather than argue about the accuracy of various models, it is more helpful to focus on empirical data.  For example, recent research has demonstrated that contemporary temperature and precipitation changes have accelerated:

Here's a good site that discusses the confirmation of AGW with empirical data:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Climate Change: How Do We Know?

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20^th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.¹

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.² Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. Ancient evidence can also be found in tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming.³

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

---

Global Temperature Rise

• 

  The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.⁴ Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months. ⁵

+ more

---

Warming Oceans

• 

  The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.⁶

+ more

---

Shrinking Ice Sheets

• 

  The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 286 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 127 billion tons of ice per year during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.⁷

   

  Image: Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet

+ more

---

Glacial Retreat

• 

  Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.⁸

   

  Image: The disappearing snowcap of Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.

+ more

---

Decreased Snow Cover

• 

  Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.⁹

+ more

---

Sea Level Rise

• 

  Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year.¹⁰

   

  Image: Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise

+ more

---

Declining Arctic Sea Ice

• 

  Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.¹¹

   

  Image: Visualization of the 2012 Arctic sea ice minimum, the lowest on record

+ more

---

Extreme Events

• 

  The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.¹²

  (Notice the frequency of extreme flooding lately)

+ more

---

Ocean Acidification

• 

  Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.^13,14 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.^15,16

[homersapien 11,388]

And regarding scientific consensus:*

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

 

*Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).

As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

[homersapien 11,388]

I guess all those organizations are just "refusing to accept the science".

[AFTiger 282]

No one is denying that climate changes. The question  is whether it is man caused or natural. The projections have been shown to be wrong which should tell you that we don't understand the complexity of our climate.

There is no consensus as I have shown you.

[homersapien 11,388]

22 hours ago, AFTiger said:

Thanks for verifying my point. The 97% consensus has been debunked many times over.

Here is one.

https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf

Stay away from the propaganda sites and study real science. 

The hacks you refer to are bonafide  scientists. Go here to see:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

BTW, that list of deniers in all categories listed on that wikipedia site totaled about 68 (if I counted directly).

Assuming the 97% consensus figure - which means the deniers constitute 3% - one calculates the total number of scientists who qualify - using the same standards as used by wikipedia - as having a valid opinion is only 2,267. 

While I don't know the exact number of qualified scientists who are convinced of the reality of AGW,  I can assure you it is much higher than 2,267, especially on a global basis. There is no doubt in my mind that if one takes the full membership in the major scientific organization listed in the link below, I will be much, much higher than 2,267.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Bottom line, this list is only a list.  It proves nothing regarding a lack of "consensus", if anything, it does just the opposite.  It demonstrates there is only a small percentage of scientists with a contrarian view.

[homersapien 11,388]

18 hours ago, AFTiger said:

No one is denying that climate changes. The question  is whether it is man caused or natural. The projections have been shown to be wrong which should tell you that we don't understand the complexity of our climate.

There is no consensus as I have shown you.

Ah, that's the first stage in reversing denial.  It used to be there is no warming.  Now it's well, there's warming but man didn't cause it.  Data has a funny way of changing opinion.

Do you have any theories regarding exactly what's causing this unprecedented warming, if not anthropogenic greenhouse gases?

And you have not shown there is no consensus.  In fact, you have demonstrated there is one. (See above post.)

The consensus is actually higher than 97% as your wikipedia link suggests.

You are the one who needs to lay off the propaganda and study the science.

 

[homersapien 11,388]

https://www.iflscience.com/environment/consensus-confirmed-over-90-climate-scientists-believe-we-re-causing-global-warming/

Consensus Confirmed: Over 90% Of Climate Scientists Believe We’re Causing Global Warming

 

When we published a paper in 2013 finding 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, what surprised me was how surprised everyone was.

Ours wasn’t the first study to find such a scientific consensus. Nor was it the second. Nor were we the last.

Nevertheless, no-one I spoke to was aware of the existing research into such a consensus. Rather, the public thought there was a 50:50 debate among scientists on the basic question of whether human activity was causing global warming.

This lack of awareness is reflected in a recent pronouncement by Senator Ted Cruz (currently competing with Donald Trump in the Republican primaries), who argued that:

The stat about the 97% of scientists is based on one discredited study.

Why is a US Senator running for President attacking University of Queensland research on scientific agreement? Cruz’s comments are the latest episode in a decades-long campaign to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change.

Back in 2002, a Republican pollster advised conservatives to attack the consensus in order to win the public debate about climate policy. Conservatives complied. In conservative opinion pieces about climate change from 2007 to 2010, their number one argument was “there is no scientific consensus on climate change”.

Recent psychological research has shown that the persistent campaign to confuse the public about scientific agreement has significant societal consequences. Public perception of consensus has been shown to be a “gateway belief”, influencing a range of other climate attitudes and beliefs.

People’s awareness of the scientific consensus affects their acceptance of climate change, and their support for climate action.

The psychological importance of perceived consensus underscores why communicating the 97% consensus is important. Consensus messaging has been shown empirically to increase acceptance of climate change.

And, crucially, it’s most effective on those who are most likely to reject climate science: political conservatives.

In other words, consensus messaging has a neutralising effect, which is especially important given the highly polarised nature of the public debate about climate change.

Expert agreement

Consequently, social scientists have urged climate scientists to communicate the scientific consensus, countering the misconception that they are still divided about human-caused global warming.

But how do you counter the myth that the 97% consensus is based on a single study?

One way is to bring together the authors of the leading consensus papers to synthesise all the existing research: a meta-study of meta-studies. We did exactly that, with a new study published in Environmental Research Letters featuring authors from seven of the leading studies into the scientific consensus on climate change.

A recurring theme throughout the consensus research was that the level of scientific agreement varied depending on climate expertise. The higher the expertise in climate science, the higher the agreement that humans were causing global warming.

To none of our surprise, the highest agreement was found among climate scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate research. Interestingly, the group with the lowest agreement was economic geologists.

^{Expertise vs consensus. Skeptical Science}

Seven studies quantified the level of agreement among publishing climate scientists, or among peer-reviewed climate papers. Across these studies, there was between 90% to 100% agreement that humans were causing global warming.

A number of studies converged on the 97% consensus value. This is why the 97% figure is often invoked, having been mentioned by such public figures as President Barack Obama, Prime Minister David Cameron and US Senator Bernie Sanders.

^{Studies into consensus. Skeptical Science}

Manufacturing doubt about consensus

The relationship between scientific agreement and expertise turns out to be crucially important in understanding the consensus issue. Unfortunately, it provides an opportunity for those who reject human-caused global warming to manufacture doubt about the high level of scientific agreement.

They achieve this by using groups of scientists with lower expertise in climate science, to convey the impression that expert agreement on climate change is low. This technique is known as “fake experts”, one of the five characteristics of science denial.

For example, surveys of climate scientists may be “diluted” by including scientists who don’t possess expertise in climate science, thus obtaining a lower level of agreement compared to the consensus among climate scientists. This is partly what Senator Rick Santorum did when he argued that the scientific consensus was only 43%.

Another implementation of the “fake expert” strategy is the use of petitions containing many scientists who lack climate science credentials. The most famous example is the Oregon Petition Project, which lists over 31,000 people with a science degree who signed a statement that humans aren’t disrupting the climate. However, 99.9% of the signatories aren’t climate scientists.

The science of science communication tells us that communicating the science isn’t sufficient. Misinformation has been shown to cancel out the effect of accurate scientific information. We also need to explain the techniques of misinformation, such as the “fake expert” strategy.

This is why in communicating the results of our latest study, we not only communicated the overwhelming scientific agreement. We also explained the technique used to cast doubt on the consensus.

John Cook, Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 

Note: emphasis mine.  And please note the reference links embedded in the article. It's worth following them.

 

[AFTiger 282]

Not this again.

[homersapien 11,388]

On 4/25/2019 at 12:11 PM, AFTiger said:

Not this again.

Until you make an honest effort to refute the substance.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

On 4/23/2019 at 11:16 AM, homersapien said:

 

We'll have 4 years of make-up work to do once we get his sorry ass out of office.

Ever think you may over estimate the ability of this man. All of the liberal publications have articles agreeing that he is reeking havoc across the planet. Think it is Friends of the Earth that go so far as to say that he is killing children. No one man just have that kind of power. 

https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2018/01/yes-trump-bad-environment-lets-not-overestimate-what-hes-done/

How much actual change has been accomplished? How much genuine harm is being done? 

 

And without minimizing this administration’s intentions, I think it’s important to avoid overestimating its impact. That will only gratify and motivate the base of voters who really think Trump is right on the need for a sweeping rollback of environmental protection, and are sufficiently deluded to believe that any president — let alone a president as disengaged and lazy as this one — can deliver it. 

 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

32 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Ever think you may over estimate the ability of this man. All of the liberal publications have articles agreeing that he is reeking havoc across the planet. Think it is Friends of the Earth that go so far as to say that he is killing children. No one man just have that kind of power. 

https://www.minnpost.com/earth-journal/2018/01/yes-trump-bad-environment-lets-not-overestimate-what-hes-done/

How much actual change has been accomplished? How much genuine harm is being done? 

 

And without minimizing this administration’s intentions, I think it’s important to avoid overestimating its impact. That will only gratify and motivate the base of voters who really think Trump is right on the need for a sweeping rollback of environmental protection, and are sufficiently deluded to believe that any president — let alone a president as disengaged and lazy as this one — can deliver it. 

 

 

You can do a lot of policy damage in 4 years, much less 8.

Just one example: Trump ordered the end of NASA research on studying greenhouse gas cuts:

Trump White House quietly cancels NASA research verifying greenhouse gas cuts

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/trump-white-house-quietly-cancels-nasa-research-verifying-greenhouse-gas-cuts

 

That's data we are no longer connecting.

While it's true that no one can turn the "ship of state" on a dime (thank god!) and it takes time to truly wonder off the correct course -  perhaps more time than 4 - the time to recover and get back on course also takes time.  It's hard to re-staff people who have left NASA or NOAA (for example) immediately too.  And four years is enough to discourage or re-direct new scientists to join these sort of organizations for the purpose of environmental research.

I am surprised he hasn't yet tried to suppress military planning based on AGW. But who knows?

To simply sit back and minimize the consequences of his policies for their magnitude of immediate effect is very short-sighted and naive.

This is not to mention the effect of Trump's position on developing a political consensus (Just look at the deniers who are Auburn graduates on this forum. ) 

The science of AGW is such that it may take decades for us to have any significant effect on stopping it, much less reversing it.  Meanwhile it continues. Ultimately, political consensus as just as important as scientific consensus for the prospect of actually doing something about it.

Having a president who dismisses it as a hoax and cut's ongoing programs certainly doesn't help develop that consensus. It just feeds the deniers. 

That's all lost time that will have to be made up.

So yeah, 4 years of Trump policies will be 4 years of lost progress plus the time it takes to us back to a sensible course.

[homersapien 11,388]

And ironically, considering all the misinformation and criticism of climate model the NASA program was designed to develop the sort of data to improve model accuracy:

"You can't manage what you don't measure. The adage is especially relevant for climate-warming greenhouse gases, which are crucial to manage—and challenging to measure. In recent years, though, satellite and aircraft instruments have begun monitoring carbon dioxide and methane remotely, and NASA's Carbon Monitoring System (CMS), a $10-million-a-year research line, has helped stitch together observations of sources and sinks into high-resolution models of the planet's flows of carbon. Now, President Donald Trump's administration has quietly killed the CMS, Science has learned."

All for saving a whopping 10 MILLION dollars!   That's just too much to spend on research for what might be an existential problem I suppose.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

(Just look at the deniers who are Auburn graduates on this forum. ) 

Probably because it is read as more of a political debate than scientific. Religious beliefs included for some.

 https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/17/educated-no-defense-climate-change-denier/

We find that beliefs are correlated with both political and religious identity for stem cell research, the Big Bang, and human evolution, and with political identity alone on climate change.

Those of us who wish to enlighten climate deniers should avoid name calling, intellectual slurs, or suggesting the person has the brains of a Golden Retriever. All are unhelpful to the cause.

The researchers analyzed public opinions on six topics—stem cell research, the big bang, human evolution, climate change, nanotechnology, and genetically modified foods—based on more than 6,500 responses from the General Social Survey (a national surveyconducted once every two years). Overall, they found that education level was “at best weakly related” to acceptance of the scientific consensus.

 

 

[homersapien 11,388]

17 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Probably because it is read as more of a political debate than scientific. Religious beliefs included for some.

 https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/17/educated-no-defense-climate-change-denier/

We find that beliefs are correlated with both political and religious identity for stem cell research, the Big Bang, and human evolution, and with political identity alone on climate change.

Those of us who wish to enlighten climate deniers should avoid name calling, intellectual slurs, or suggesting the person has the brains of a Golden Retriever. All are unhelpful to the cause.

The researchers analyzed public opinions on six topics—stem cell research, the big bang, human evolution, climate change, nanotechnology, and genetically modified foods—based on more than 6,500 responses from the General Social Survey (a national surveyconducted once every two years). Overall, they found that education level was “at best weakly related” to acceptance of the scientific consensus.

 

 

You are correct regarding people's beliefs being directed by emotions, politics and religion. I gave up trying to actually convince people of such scientific realities long ago.  Trying to correct ignorance is one thing, trying to correct willful ignorance is another - it's a fool's errand.

To me, arguing with such people is more about rebutting absurd statements with facts - a motivation that is undoubtedly founded by my own emotions and political values.

If they are objective enough to actually become "enlightened" by hearing the facts, all the better.  But I don't expect it.   Anyone who denies the science regarding any of the topics you mentioned, is highly unlikely to be persuaded by me or my presentation of the science.  I understand that.

But perhaps someone following the discussion who is willing to learn more, will be inspired to do so.  There are plenty of books that explain the science for any of these realities in terms a layman can understand.  But you have to be open minded and curious enough to read them.