We Need To Talk About Donald

[Forty Two]

I guess the author of the piece, being a member of that 'glassy-eyed cult' of climate scientists, is probably just lying then. But then again, if you're someone like Jeff Sessions lying is the new truth.

Oh, no, she's probably not lying. She may well have run across links that stopped working after January 20. But the article does not attempt to explain why. So, we are still left not knowing why the links stopped working, and if it was permanent or temporary, who made the decision, was it political or inadvertent, etc. - all that information which any journalist could research and find the answers to. However, the article simply implies very heavily that that the links are gone because Trump wants to hide them.

Now, I say, "probably not lying" because climate scientists are people and people sometimes (a) are wrong, and (b) lie. Climate scientists are not more virtuous than anyone else, and some climate scientists can have axes to grind and agendas to serve, just like everyone else. They are not saints.

[Brian Peacock]

Where have you been hiding? You do know that the EPA portal was basically wiped clean within a week of Trump taking office don't you?

So you think this scientist could be lying because she has an axe to grind. OK. What do you think Jeff Sessions' axe is?

[Animavore]

A good article on Trump team's bill today to reverse restrictions on carbon emissions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 0320e20d8b

Also mentions possible legal action. Trump's team need to justify why they're doing this. Saying, "So my friends in the fossil industry can squeeze every last penny out of the ground and walk away loaded" won't cut it, it seems.

[Forty Two]

Where have you been hiding? You do know that the EPA portal was basically wiped clean within a week of Trump taking office don't you?

Wasn't, that did not happen.

So you think this scientist could be lying because she has an axe to grind. OK. What do you think Jeff Sessions' axe is?

Sessions can be lying about things, too. I'm not even sure there is an axe to grind. It's the job of an investigative journalist to get the facts and not report on generalities. Note, they didn't even include the usual "officials with the Trump Administration were contacted for comment, but have not responded." They didn't indicate that any research was done. Nothing verifiable was included so that people could see what was being alleged.

It's an interesting article, but other than "she's a climate scientist and said some unspecified links and information were no longer accessible for unknown reasons" what does the article actually tell us?

[Brian Peacock]

Where have you been hiding? You do know that the EPA portal was basically wiped clean within a week of Trump taking office don't you?

Wasn't, that did not happen.

So you think this scientist could be lying because she has an axe to grind. OK. What do you think Jeff Sessions' axe is?

Sessions can be lying about things, too. I'm not even sure there is an axe to grind. It's the job of an investigative journalist to get the facts and not report on generalities. Note, they didn't even include the usual "officials with the Trump Administration were contacted for comment, but have not responded." They didn't indicate that any research was done. Nothing verifiable was included so that people could see what was being alleged.

It's an interesting article, but other than "she's a climate scientist and said some unspecified links and information were no longer accessible for unknown reasons" what does the article actually tell us?

Well sure, we are all capable of lying, but Jeff Sessions did actually lie to Congress under oath. You say you're not sure he has an axe to grind, but something must have motivated him to tell such a serious porky eh?

The article in the Guardian is not an piece of investigative journalism but a first-hand report from a climate scientist about how dropped citation links to specific datasets appears to be part of a political program to undermine the scientific basis of the policy debate and decision-making. Do you think she's wrong about the dropped citation links to/from government resources, or just wrong in her conclusions?

[Forty Two]

Where have you been hiding? You do know that the EPA portal was basically wiped clean within a week of Trump taking office don't you?

Wasn't, that did not happen.

So you think this scientist could be lying because she has an axe to grind. OK. What do you think Jeff Sessions' axe is?

Sessions can be lying about things, too. I'm not even sure there is an axe to grind. It's the job of an investigative journalist to get the facts and not report on generalities. Note, they didn't even include the usual "officials with the Trump Administration were contacted for comment, but have not responded." They didn't indicate that any research was done. Nothing verifiable was included so that people could see what was being alleged.

It's an interesting article, but other than "she's a climate scientist and said some unspecified links and information were no longer accessible for unknown reasons" what does the article actually tell us?

Well sure, we are all capable of lying, but Jeff Sessions did actually lie to Congress under oath. You say you're not sure he has an axe to grind, but something must have motivated him to tell such a serious porky eh?

Well, lying about talking to the Russian ambassador wasn't particularly serious, except that it involves a Trump nominee, so then it's Chicken Little time. And, it's not entirely clear he "lied" or even why he would "lie" about it. If he had simply said "Of course I had communications with the ambassador...it was part of my job." There would have been nothing to it. In context, he's being asked about whether he had communications about the campaign.

I have been wondering about what was up there, too. I don't get it. What's there to lie about? Everyone knew he was in contact with Russian officials from time to time, just like Democrat Congresspeople did. They all do. I went to Canada while in college and met several ambassadors in Ottawa personally, from a variety of different countries - they're AMBASSADORS - anyone is allowed to talk with them, even if they are from meanie countries, and I spoke personally to Jean Chretien, and Brian Mulroney over there. I had a great time. There is nothing wrong with that at all. So, the big question in my mind is why anyone would lie about something that isn't wrong? What was he hiding? What do you think he was hiding?

I'm not saying he was telling the truth. I don't trust Jeff Sessions as far as I can throw him, but the same goes for most politicians. I trust what I can verify. After that, I go by results. I assume they're all full of shit.

The article in the Guardian is not an piece of investigative journalism but a first-hand report from a climate scientist about how dropped citation links to specific datasets appears to be part of a political program to undermine the scientific basis of the policy debate and decision-making. Do you think she's wrong about the dropped citation links to/from government resources, or just wrong in her conclusions?

I would think the journalists at The Guardian would look into it. A first hand account that basically says "hey, these links don't work anymore, and I don't know why, but I figure it must be nefarious doings on the part of Trump..." isn't telling us much.

Appear to be part of a political program? How so? what has the writer shown us that makes it "appear" to be part of a political program? What program? Whose? How does the writer know?

I can't tell if she's right or wrong about the dropped citation links because she hasn't provided the original citation links, the pages on which they were contained, or any other details. So, I don't know. She says some unspecified links don't work anymore. She doesn't know why. Neither do I.

[Animavore]

More on Trump's wilfully ignorant and anti-science executive order today.

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environme ... er-climate

Hopefully America just moves on without him and his eventual failure to bring back the coal jobs he promised is enough for his supporters to turn their back on him. He's no leader or visionary. He's no President. Just a corporate shill.

[Animavore]

Laugh at the clown.

[Forty Two]

More on Trump's wilfully ignorant and anti-science executive order today.

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environme ... er-climate

Hopefully America just moves on without him and his eventual failure to bring back the coal jobs he promised is enough for his supporters to turn their back on him. He's no leader or visionary. He's no President. Just a corporate shill.

As much as climate change attention is a laudable goal, if you want to keep the US out of more wars, we need energy independence. The effect on climate change of American military actions over the last 20 years is fairly large, so any increase in emissions from Trump's policy to gain energy independence may at least partly be offset by the lack of American armies out and about. Certainly the people over there would probably be happy not seeing our tanks and planes. Also, the US can have a much kinder and gentler foreign policy overall, if we have no need to deal with theocrats and dictators to get their oil.

[Forty Two]

Laugh at the clown.

My theory is Trump never cared if the American Health Care Act passed or didn't. I think he hoped it wouldn't, so Obamacare stays in place. In the short term, Republicans look bad, but to some extent that's like the Senate looking bad but the people who loved Caesar still loved Caesar. Hardly anybody in his base are blaming him for it going down. They blame the hapless Republican party -- the other party Trump ran against in the election.

Later, as Obamacare continues to implode, that's also not on Trump. That's on Obama and the Democrats.

Just wait and see.

[Animavore]

Hard man Trump declines to throw first pitch of baseball season.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... eason.html

[Animavore]

Progressive states to push ahead with future energy solutions in spite of Trump and his moronic order.

http://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/i ... -executive

[Tero]

Trump had a Temper tantrum when the healthcare failed. They nearly had to bring in the white coats. But he had a bit of cocaine to get thru the weekend.

[tattuchu]

Hard man Trump declines to throw first pitch of baseball season.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... eason.html

His hands are too small to grip the ball. And, he throws like a girl

[pErvinalia]

Where have you been hiding? You do know that the EPA portal was basically wiped clean within a week of Trump taking office don't you?

Wasn't, that did not happen.

So you think this scientist could be lying because she has an axe to grind. OK. What do you think Jeff Sessions' axe is?

Sessions can be lying about things, too. I'm not even sure there is an axe to grind. It's the job of an investigative journalist to get the facts and not report on generalities. Note, they didn't even include the usual "officials with the Trump Administration were contacted for comment, but have not responded." They didn't indicate that any research was done. Nothing verifiable was included so that people could see what was being alleged.

It's an interesting article, but other than "she's a climate scientist and said some unspecified links and information were no longer accessible for unknown reasons" what does the article actually tell us?

Well sure, we are all capable of lying, but Jeff Sessions did actually lie to Congress under oath. You say you're not sure he has an axe to grind, but something must have motivated him to tell such a serious porky eh?

Well, lying about talking to the Russian ambassador wasn't particularly serious, except that it involves a Trump nominee, so then it's Chicken Little time. And, it's not entirely clear he "lied" or even why he would "lie" about it. If he had simply said "Of course I had communications with the ambassador...it was part of my job." There would have been nothing to it. In context, he's being asked about whether he had communications about the campaign.

I have been wondering about what was up there, too. I don't get it. What's there to lie about? Everyone knew he was in contact with Russian officials from time to time, just like Democrat Congresspeople did. They all do. I went to Canada while in college and met several ambassadors in Ottawa personally, from a variety of different countries - they're AMBASSADORS - anyone is allowed to talk with them, even if they are from meanie countries, and I spoke personally to Jean Chretien, and Brian Mulroney over there. I had a great time. There is nothing wrong with that at all. So, the big question in my mind is why anyone would lie about something that isn't wrong? What was he hiding? What do you think he was hiding?

Your apologetics are fucking spectacular.