Trump to scrap NASA climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’

Great thing about science is it has no bearing on whether or not you "believe" in it.

Is this a troll?

I cant tell. Some people are so intentionally stupid on this subject i cant tell the difference between someone being serious but stupid, or someone trolling.

Anyway, i will say that "politicized science" is something that does need to be addressed but CC is not in this category.

Oh, get out of here with that crap. If you think that NASA hasn't done anything since putting people on the moon, then that's YOUR fault for being the kind of person who doesn't pay any attention to science. NASA has "landed" on Mars multiple times, you just don't give a shit unless there's a spaceman walking around up there like in the movies.

A lot of the blue states flipped to red. What the hell are you talking about?

Alongside climate change becoming a partisan issue, how people acknowledge climate change needs to change. Saying you "believe" in something means that it is more of an idea than something real.

A better way to say it would be to swap "believe" with "recognize" or "acknowledge". You wouldn't say you believe in gravity or that you believe the tides rise because of the moon.

@n64dd: we can't destroy the earth? Your ignorance is beyond my comprehension. Meanwhile it's estimated that humanity has about 60 harvests left if we don't stop abusing soil, so we may all starve. Well that and the USA alone has enough nukes to destroy the planet, so yeah, your ignorance astounds me.

I don't see how extinction of a single species counts as "destroying the Earth." Even if we do starve ourselves into extinction, it seems pretty self-centered to say that the Earth is "destroyed" just because we aren't around any more.

Yet if in both outcomes we're all dead, why split hairs? Maybe work at both keeping us alive and keeping the Earth spherical and sustainable?

We cannot physically destroy the Earth. It's survived way more than we are capable of.

I'm sorry you buy into the hype.

I just don't like the dishonest hyperbole. Let's be honest and admit that environmentalism is a selfish pursuit, that we want to preserve things the way they are for OUR benefit.

It just really rubs me the wrong way that we pretend that we're doing the Earth a favor by trying to keep things the way they are, when nearly every species that has ever lived has gone extinct and the Earth doesn't give a shit. It really rubs me the wrong way that we project what's bad for us as what's bad for the Earth. That's a really narrow-minded anthropocentric view that still places us as the most important thing on the planet, and the defining standard for the Earth's "survival". The difference is that it's dishonest as f***.

It's like the difference between a man who beats his kids and thinks he's doing them a favor, vs a man who beats his kids simply because it gets them to shut up. At least the second guy KNOWS that he's an asshole and can weigh the risks and benefits through a lens of realism. The first guy is just delusional as hell.

As George Carlin said, the Earth is gonna be fine. We're the ones who are f***ed. That should be the basis of our environmentalist endeavors, not some hippy wishy-washy bullshit about saving the planet when mass extinctions and catastrophic change are the only reasons why the Earth exists in its current state. By that logic, the Earth has already been "destroyed" many times over, and yet that's somehow a GOOD thing since it resulted in the Earth that we have a vested interest in preserving. Humans and pandas and cute fluffy kittens wouldn't even exist if the world hadn't been "destroyed" many times over, and now we're acting as if it's somehow objectively bad that all those things might go away? No, the only reasons that's "bad" is because we have a concept of good and bad, and we define that thing as bad in relation to our narrow and self-centered worldview. Which is fine, I have no problem with self-preservation. But let's admit that that's what it comes down to: self-preservation.

*slow clap* Thank you!

NASA needs to stop with this global warming fiction and discover the lost city of Atlantis or the aliens.

@n64dd: Seriously, shouldn't we be at least a little bit worried about how humans are going to continue to live here and not so much about how the earth will get on without us?

Oh, of course we should be concerned about our own survival.

But if anything, isn't THAT the narrative that should be dominating if we really want to get people to make changes? "Save the planet" or "save the trees" is some really abstract stuff that's harder for people to get on board with. However, "save your own ass, protect your family's legacy, and prevent your grandchildren from suffering miserably" is probably something that more people can relate to a bit better.

I don't know. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer a pragmatic approach. I like to think that I respect ALL forms of life, but I admit that I place priority on our own kind. If we had a way to save billions of people by utterly eradicating the micro-organism that causes malaria, then I'd probably press the "extinction" button and do away with malaria.

You know what word im tired of hearing from this election cycle?

"Pragmatic".

In six short months "pragmatic" has become the most overused and inappropriately used word in the English language.

This gets turned into being overdramatic and unrealistic or the sky is falling by those opposed to doing anything quite effectively until it makes your reasonable message seem to be unreasonable and outlandish.

I've seen the reasonable position on climate change become something in between wrong and what scientists are actually saying.

@Serraph105: Yeah, I don't think anyone is legitimately claiming the Earth will be destroyed, life on Earth will be destroyed, or even that the human race will be wiped out. This thread literally turned into an argument over definitions, and that shouldn't be mistaken for anyone's position on anything.

Politicized science?

Does that mean that if your political ideology is different then that of Sir Isaac Newton, you can reject the notion of gravity?

@MrGeezer: huh... Uhhh okay well, I'm the kinda guy who lives his life in the present, but certainly with the future in mind, and that includes wanting the best for me, my generation and future generations.

I thought any sane person would want that but I guess I was wrong.

What a stupid thing to say

the epitome of hypocrisy.

sweet, that will go nicely with Musks' Mars plan as well. Then only the super rich can flee the world we destroyed when it costs 500+ k for a ticket off a world they destroyed.

It means combining the two and attempting to craft narratives or results based on predetermined political ideas.

It is note worthy to mention that this is a real problem, but as with most topics Trump seems to get it wrong.

We have media who attempts to politicize science, political parties that attempt to politicize science but worse, we actually see a disheartening number of scientific journals that attempt to create their own narrative through what they want to publish. Its mostly soft science stuff that is affected and altered or guided. Im sure you see and hear it all the time, like..... the idea that your kid will be smarter if they learn two languages before 8 or something. The idea that a kid will be smarter if their parents played classical music to them every day as a new born and toddler. Stuff like that.

These are things that we definitely need to address as a society, but i dont know if legislation is the answer and what Donald is wanting to do is coming no where near fixing the problems.

That reminded me of the stories about "luxury underground doomsday bunkers", in which the super-rich plan to ride out the apocalypse in pampered bliss while the dispensable proles die in their billions.

Indoor swimming pools, indoor farms, private movie theaters, comfort-controlled living environments and huge stashes of food will be just some of the perks that they'll enjoy in their bunkers.

And, of course, when the apocalyptic conditions have passed, it will be the descendants of the vile, exploitative money-grubbers who will repopulate the Earth.

Luxury 'doomsday bunker' will allow 34 super rich families to survive the apocalypse

For the proles:

For the special ones:

:-(

What, and N64dd doesn't? Just because he has an aversion to the overblown unrealistic and anthropocentric view that change is bad and equals "destruction of the planet", he doesn't want the best for future generations too? Then why the hell even make that condescending remark to him?

This is exactly my point. We most certainly SHOULD be more concerned about ourselves than about how the planet is going to get on without us. The planet DOESN'T need us, it WILL be fine without us, and the only thing that concerns us IS our self-preservation. That's precisely why this "save the planet" nonsense is a load of bullshit. That's just distracting people from the real issue, which is that we ought to be doing what is in our best interests. If you're concerned about the well-being of the human species, then why even go off on some ridiculous tangent about us destroying the planet? We shouldn't even be having these kinds of discussions, "saving the planet" should be a total non-issue.

Elon Musk and Stephen Hawking agree: Humanity's best hope for avoiding extinction is to become a multiplanetary species.

After all, ameliorating the climate will have been a sad waste of resources if an asteroid or comet strike were to wipe out humanity altogether.

And trust Obama to make the wrong decision. He's boosted the budget of NASA's "Earth Sciences" division by 50%, while proposing cuts to funding for deep space exploration---the deep space exploration that could find our new home!

I disagree. Even if no one thinks we can LITERALLY destroy the planet (and even that seems to not be the case), there are some disturbing implications behind the idea that are carried over into people's ACTUAL beliefs. As in, the notion that man-made environmental disasters are objectively "bad" beyond the context of how it affects humans, while natural disasters (such as volcanoes or something) are okay. Extinction by a volcano? That's not bad, that's just nature doing its thing. Extinction due to over-hunting by humans? Awful! That's not "natural", we ought to know "better".

There really does seem to be this notion among the environmentalist crowd that the ideal state of the world is the way it is now. That it isn't just our job to avoid changing things too much so that we don't screw OURSELVES over, but that we somehow exist outside of the natural order. That we're "better" than the other animals and that that somehow makes it our duty to preserve things as they are now out of some sense that change would be objectively bad.

Regardless of if it's something that people LITERALLY believe, the language behind it is meant to send a message. And the message is deliberately intended to paint "the environment" as some frail little thing that would be ruined if it were to change, and that it needs brave and powerful protectors like us to stand up and protect it. That's still placing us on a pedestal just as much as the notion that god put the natural world here for us to use as we please.

While I don't disagree with the notion that we have to leave this planet in order to further our chances of avoiding extinction, I don't realistically see much that we can do about that yet.

That's a LONG way off. Probably THOUSANDS of years away.

Considering that finding a new home (an actual alternative to Earth, not just a little self-contained colony on another planet) would require INTERSTELLAR travel, it's not much of an issue at this point. Even if we were to "discover" a suitable extrasolar planet right now, we still have a LOT of work to do on robotics (we'd definitely need to send robots first) and the technology to actually get those robots there. As far as I'm aware, nothing that we have is close to being feasible for sending actual humans on such a mission. Even if we found a suitable planet now, the trip would still be practically undoable given our current technology. So it probably isn't going to do much harm to put "finding planets to go to" on the back burner until we actually have a way to get there.

Fairly certain such "studies" is made so to get further funding for other research that takes time and money, rather then being a result of a political agenda. Which is why you do get such scientific studies as you mentioned and several studies that go " X gives you cancer". It is a problem however since it does ruin the trust in scientific studies and research breakthroughs.

And then you do get people that thinks that our industry worldwide and pollution does not affect the planet, or that the planet is flat.

@MrGeezer: "saving the planet should be a total non-issue"?

Our survival as a species lays contingent on addressing the means of sustainability that enables it. Namely....our planet. Perhaps "save" is overly hyperbolic, but we can't discuss taking care of ourselves without taking the Earth's situation into account at the same time. Saving ourselves and saving Earth (meaning retaining sustainable conditions) are synonymous. Call it hippy bullshit if you like, but we are tied to this planet and depend on it.

When we pass the 4C threshold and civilization doesn't collapsed (maybe?) people will care even less about any goals regarding climate change.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I don't think we can call preserving the planet a selfish pursuit per se. It also extends the longevity of species of animals as well. What is selfish is using dangerous policies for the greedy and selfish way to make more money. Which is why business has traditionally been uninterested in curtailing their practices. This is also why you don't elect a business man. He does, in fact, have very selfish reasons for NOT funding climate change research. He wants to make money....not be forced to spend money to product the earth.

Not all species have gone extinct.....quite a few have adapted. And even if you were correct that doesn't mean it's okay to hasten the end of all species.

Your analogy is very poor. Assuming you mean a swat now and then that can be effective. You don't "beat" children nor should you hurt them.

Taking science from a comedian? Seriously? Anyway your last paragraph....hell most of your post seems to be semantics. You don't like the phrase save the earth is all it comes down to in the end. Earth can and is used as a statement of all living things on it as well.

Normally I don't disagree with you too much these days but this post is just preposterous dude.

Again, that's got nothing to do with saving the planet, that's entirely about saving ourselves.

So?

That's semantics again though dude. When the word planet is used it means people and animals etc.

To be fair Trump does appeal to the uneducated. They can't help themselves.

By what standard is extending the longevity of other species "good"? Outside of the context of basic self interest (as in, "it's good because we want to keep them around"), how exactly are you determining that it's "good" that a species doesn't go extinct? You're making the value assessment that in a world that is constantly changing, this particular change would be objectively bad. Where's the scientific basis for that?

The survival of other species isn't "good" because they're supposed to be here, the survival of other species is "good" because we want to keep them around. That's entirely for our benefit, not the benefit of the planet.

Species have been going extinct since life has existed on Earth. Which extinctions were "good" and which extinctions were "bad"? To pick and choose and assign such traits presupposes some kind of end goal, that the world is supposed to change until it looks a certain way and then just stop there. That's not how nature works, dude. That's taking what's good for us and projecting it onto the rest of the world, the result ultimately being a world that exists solely for our benefit. It's the epitome of human hubris and arrogance, and you don't even realize it.

Americans either voted for this, or avoided voting because the mainstream media had everyone convinced it could never happen. Well done.

Generally allowing living things to live is considered good by just about any ethical system. And frankly there is always an element of self interest in everything we do.....that does not mean we aren't acting for altruistic motives though. I might give you a hand moving because you need a hand moving but at the core it makes people feel good to help as well. It is NOT a negative to do good things even if you achieve some happiness from it.

Do we want to keep them around? I can't stand insects in any form but I'd allow that we shouldn't destroy their lives because of it. That may benefit some species but not all. And in the end the destruction can benefit more than harm.

Again most species have adapted. Or do you not allow for evolution?

Some people claiming we should just kill off other species or watch them go extinct without any effort are stupid as heck.

These are the same people who would watch the rest of the world burn including those poor humans, before they give up their quality of life

I firmly believe we're fucked either way. Our never ending greed will be our own undoing. It's not enough for people to have food and a warm bed anymore. Hey, I'm human too. I love all my modern day luxuries

Even if we solve global warming and reverse all the damage, another revolution will come when the robot age hits us. When we have AIs who are as capable as our best and brightest, then things will really get interesting. I for one welcome our new robot masters, I'm tired of the dumb mofo politicians who make policy up for their own selfish greed. The robots will do things that are only logical, and things that may not be solely beneficial to humans. Of course when that happens, the shit will really hit the fan.

Where did you get that idea? We build walls to guard against floods. We fortify for hurricanes and evacuate prior to them.

We attempt to mitigate loss of life and economic damage because it leaves victims in it's wake. That includes preventing such losses from both natural and man made causes.

Seriously bashing trump over the environment lol..Wow really gang, you young people, that money for the us can be used else where in the states, maybe bringing jobs to poor area..How about rebuilding our bridges, how about your countries helping out for once..Crying about a man who hasnt even gone into office yet is just sad, let the man get in first than maybe cry about politics..Its just sad state when you people argue about mr trump an the mans not even into office, an hes cutting the fat where it doesnt need to go where there are many areas in the united states that need help an mr oboma the worst pres in american history hasnt done nothing in 8 years an hillary is beyond crooked running her own ponsie scheme but isnt arrested yet is just sad..So stop with the trump bashing..

Maybe if more people were educated BEFORE elections we wouldn't have an unqualified president elect that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.

So you respond with a red herring to criticism towards his environmental policies. His environmental policies would have serious consequences not only for americans but everyone living abroad. But the US would suffer the most, by far. Smog in particular could very much be a thing if Trump goes through with his plan. Air pollution kills 7 million people every year as it is, I dont want than number to go even higher.

Our countries? You do realize that on a per capita basis, the US pollutes roughly 4 times more than my country.

Crying about a man who hasnt even gone into office yet is just sad, let the man get in first than maybe cry about politics..Its just sad state when you people argue about mr trump an the mans not even into office, an hes cutting the fat where it doesnt need to go where there are many areas in the united states that need help

I do agree that crying about him now is irrational. But cutting the fat where it isnt needed? Would Trump cut down on the bloated US military budget? Would Trump stop giving the richest companies in the world their billion dollar welfare checks? Would Trump put an end to those costly blue laws?

an mr oboma the worst pres in american history hasnt done nothing in 8 years an hillary is beyond crooked running her own ponsie scheme but isnt arrested yet is just sad..So stop with the trump bashing..

According to experts, Obama, while not great, is in the upper half of presidents. Not surprising either, since for all his flaws and mistakes, he did a fairly competent job reducing the deficit by a significant ammount. Did nothing in 8 years? Please cut the crap.

http://pleasecutthecrap.com/obama-accomplishments/

Hillary didnt go to jail because of loopholes in the legal system. It sucks, but under no objective viewpoint did she break the law.

No, I think its pretty obvious no matter where you stand with climate change that there was very much a political aspect to it and you cannot deny it. At the end of day sure we have an impact on the environment and by all means whatever we can do to make it a safer and healthy environment for us and future generations lets do it. But lets not sit here and slap regulations here and there and then blatantly attempt to put one industry out of business while attempting to prop another one up. Then add fear mongering to it and make it seem like we are all going to die tomorrow and polar bears will be in our back yard type of deal. On top of that I'm not denying that we haven't shitted up the environment, but I hate when people sit here and just accept everything that someone says because they have a title to their name. Shit should be challenged and good science is no exception. Its OK to think for yourself and not just look at what a non-transparent organization tells everyone.

Great, NASA has better stuff to do.

Why do we need to land on Mars? We can study everything about it by sending drones to collect samples and record video. It'd be a massive waste of resources and money to simply put people on mars or any of the other planets in our solar system. We need an actual legitimate reason to do so.

Heck, we should have never even landed on the moon. It was a big waste of time and money. There is nothing to be gained from actually going to any of these dead rocks.

@JangoWuzHere: For a number of reasons, what if, something happens to Earth in the next few centuries? Don't you wanna see Humanity colonizing other worlds? Yes the technology isn't advance yet to do so, but do you wanna see Humanity reaching for the stars in the distance future?

I'm not sure how putting people on mars is supposed to help that.

All the research and data we can collect on potentially colonizing other worlds can be accomplished by sending drones and rovers. We don't need actual boots on the ground for that.

A major part of global warming just destruction of the planet is caused by eating meat. There is a great documentary named cowspiricy on netflix. Yeah this is the type of bs you can expect from trumps team in a effort to make AmerKKKa great I mean white again.