A disaster for humanity
Phil Plait tells us Trump is apparently going to cut off the funding for NASA’s climate research.
In an interview with the Guardian, Bob Walker, a senior Trump adviser, said that Trump will eliminate NASA’s Earth science research. This is the mission directorate of NASA that, among other important issues, studies climate change.
In other words, Trump and his team want to stop NASA from studying climate change. From the article:
Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.
So that’s horrifying.
If this slashing of NASA Earth science comes to pass, it will be a disaster for humanity. This is no exaggeration: NASA is the leading agency in studying the effects of global warming on the planet, in measuring the changes in our atmosphere, our oceans, the weather, and yes, the climate as temperatures increase. They have a fleet of spacecraft observing the Earth, and plans for more to better understand our environment. That’s all on the chopping block now.
Especially irritating are the details of what Walker said. Calling climate change research “politicized science” is so ironic you could build a battle fleet out of it, because it was the GOP who politicized it. They are the ones who attacked it as a party plank, they are the ones who have been taking millions in fossil fuel money to fund an organized disinformation campaign about it, they are the ones who harass climate scientists.
“Politicized” – honest to christ. It’s not politicizing to think it’s probably not ok to continue destroying the climate for the sake of our short-term gain while leaving the catastrophe for future generations to deal with.
Walker said the research should be done by NOAA, which Plait points out is outrageous since the Republicans have been relentlessly attacking NOAA for the past two years.
There’s one other exasperating thing Walker said, and it’s a pants-on-fire doozy:
Walker, however, claimed that doubt over the role of human activity in climate change “is a view shared by half the climatologists in the world. We need good science to tell us what the reality is and science could do that if politicians didn’t interfere with it.”
That is complete garbage. “Half the climatologists”? In reality, at least 97 percent of climatologists agree that humans cause global warming, and the data show you can’t explain the current rising temperatures without human influence.
And need I remind you, this is all happening while the planet has seen a string of record breaking heat, month after month, where the Arctic sea ice is melting in unprecedented ways, where President Obama has said climate change and its denial is a threat to national security, and a top military advisory board has said the same thing.
I find it outrageous that Trump won this presidency in large part by stoking fear in people, yet he denies the single biggest thing we actually should be scared of.
We’re screwed.
A Happy Thanksgiving to you, too, Ophelia.
As an environmental scientist, the only thing I can say is “NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOO” and run screaming into the darkness .
Yeah, I’m giving thanks all over the place, I am.
For the longest time politicians and business leaders of a certain type argued that there was no science to ‘prove’ global warming, so they didn’t have to do anything. Then they argued that the emerging science was wrong, then they argued it wasn’t conclusive, then they argued that it’s a conspiracy. Now they just want to defund it so they can go back to saying there is no science…
In the meantime the warm water rises around our ankles…
Yes, but look on the bright side, Rob….oh, wait, what was the bright side again? I can’t see the bright side.
It was there a minute ago. I think it melted.
I think the classic stages of climate change denialism go more like this:
1.a. The planet isn’t heating up, ergo no regulations.
1.b. We don’t know that it’s heating up, ergo no regulations.
2.a. Even if the planet is heating up, we’re not causing it, ergo no regulations.
2.b. We don’t know what’s causing it, ergo no regulations.
3. Even if we’re causing it, it’s not a problem, ergo no regulations.
These are the main stages to which one might add:
4. Even if it’s a problem, we cannot solve it, ergo no regulations.
5. Even if we can solve it, any solution is bound to be worse than the problem itself, ergo no regulations.
6. Yes, it’s real. Yes, we’re causing it. Yes, it’s a problem. Yes, we need to fix it. (*compartmentalization happening*) Now let’s go out there and find every molecule of fossil fuel on this planet and put in on fire!
(7. Se 1.a.)
Don’t forget the stage of: It’s real, it’s a problem, we caused it, but there’s nothing we can do about it now, it’s too late, there’s no point in trying, ergo, no regulations.
The one thing you forgot – yes it’s real, yes we’re causing it, yes we need to do something, but government is evil, so we can let the market “adjust” which, of course, will solve it. If the market fails to solve it, then we don’t have a problem because the market always acts rationally.
Yeah, but I think #7 is basically another version of “We can’t solve it”, and #8 is a version of “It’s not a problem”.
I wasn’t trying to correct your list in #7, sorry if it came out that way. The nuance I was striving for is in regard to people who previously obstructed action based on “climate change is a hoax”, but now obstruct action based on “we should have done something earlier, now it’s too late”. I agree it’s a variant of “no solution”.