Standing Up for Science: Scientists in the Age of Trump

January 21, 2017

Clips from my interviews at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting last month.

Leading scientists update us on breaking news of climate impacts, and their personal reactions to Trump’s America.

Advertisements

16 Responses to “Standing Up for Science: Scientists in the Age of Trump”

  1. vierotchka Says:

    Very good, Peter.

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Excellent video! It sounds like the scientists are finally getting emotional and passionate about the issue. Let’s hope it translates into real action. We’ve had a lot of folks down through the years who were willing to kill for Christ, kill for Muhammed, kill for slavery, and kill to take land away from natives—-it’s time that we had some scientists who are willing to “Kill for science” and the survival of life on earth. Theres should be some kind of “boot camp” set up to get them pumped and ready to “kill”—-perhaps a cadre of old USMC drill instructors could run it”.

      • vierotchka Says:

        Don’t you think there’s been far too much killing already? What’s with your obsession about killing? Sheesh!

        • dumboldguy Says:

          I’m not “obsessed” with “killing”—-the whole human race is—-it’s part of the tragedy of the commons. And do Russians not use quotation marks as “qualifiers”—-i,e., signs to the reader that the words within should not quite be taken literally?

          As an old Marine, I subscribe to the views of another old Marine—-Mad Dog Mattis, who will likely turn out to be the best of The Pussy Grabber’s cabinet appointments. To quote Mad Dog:

          “The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event. That said, there are some assholes in the world that just need to be shot.”

          “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”

          “Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.” (and that last may mean some Russians)

          OOH-Rah and Semper F!

          • vierotchka Says:

            Ah, that explains why you are such an arsehole – you have been totally dehumanized, broken and robotized by the USMC and swear by that ridiculous and meaningless “semper fi”. Pitiful. I truly pity you, you have permanently lost your now defunct humanity and soul.

          • dumboldguy Says:

            Actually, the lessons I learned in the USMC and the code that was instilled in me more than 55 years ago have come in very handy down through my life, both for me and in the help that I have been able to give to others and to society. You wouldn’t understand that, because you obviously live by no “code”, and if anyone should be pitied here it’s you.

            Stupid old woman!

    • dumboldguy Says:

      Look at Darling V playing nice! Is she trying to get some positive points on the board to counter all the negatives she has accumulated? Have her superiors finally gotten around to doing a performance review and are they as aghast as the rest of us at how stupidly she has represented Russian interests?

  2. Tom Bates Says:

    It would be nice if Dr. Myhre would stand up for science. That is the problem, plenty of PHds like this one are not standing up for science, they are standing up for PC and where is the next grant.

    The distortions and lies put out in the name of science are legion. Hanson claim the ocean will rise many meters in the next 30 years being only one example. She goes on and on and never bothers to mention that not a single one of their climate models could reproduce the actual climate of the past using the model. She goes on and one and never bothers to mention the little ice age is still around since it is colder than in 1000 AD as demonstrated by trees from 1000 AD and older being found under a melting glacier in Alaska. She never bothers to mention the Maldives for example are not sinking into the sea as found by several studies that have zero to do with Trump.

    What she is really worried about is the new administration might actually ask people wanting grants to justify spending scarce tax dollars. Since the feds do have a huge deficit maybe grants should be on something which is actually useful. An example of the waste is the study in Hawaii of putting six people in a tent for six months to quote “study living on mars” at a cost of millions of dollars when you have the same thing every winter for people staying over in antarctica. You could make the communication the same for those people with a built in 20 minute delay at a cost of 100 dollars for a clock.

    • Glenn Martin Says:

      your cherry picked and flat out wrong “facts” continue to unimpress as do your completely off-topic musings about a Mars study. Why do you even bother?

    • ubrew12 Says:

      “not a single one of their climate models could reproduce the actual climate of the past using the model.” They reproduce the climate of the last century almost perfectly. But not perfectly because they are just models. They can’t ‘beat reality’, they can only beat the competition, which is you. Don’t think we haven’t noticed that you, and Exxon, and the Koch Brothers, have not bothered to put your ‘superior climate knowledge’ to the ultimate test: formalizing it into a model of climate and comparing it to the modern record. It’s like saying you can bat better than Paul Goldschmidt, but refuse to pick up a bat. Don’t tell me Exxon doesn’t have the money for a ‘climate-model-based-on-denier-logic’. They just shut down their models in 1980 cuz they didn’t like the conclusions, not cuz they couldn’t afford them.


  3. Mr. Bates – your denialist retorts have been debunked over and over again. And your million-time repeated claim that climate scientists are in it only for the grant money – wake up please. What is more likely – a denialist campaign similar to the now (in)famous tobacco campaign, where Big Oil is trying to protect the viability of their main product by deflecting inconvenient scientific findings? Or an entire body of science conspiring to sell a lie to the world in order to keep the grant money coming in? Common sense alone answers that one. How about this – what are the odds that more than 97% of scientists in the field are saying the same thing, and are wrong? I’d say pretty low. Since when should national policy be based on something that unlikely? Especially when the consequences of being wrong are so dire.

    You haven’t a leg to stand on sir. My guess is that, like so many others, your ideology has so overwhelmed your logical thinking capacity that you just can no longer see the obvious. Climate science has it right. It’s predictions based on the robust evidence based theories have been right on with the possible exception of not predicting how fast the effects are coming.

    You sir, and those like you, are an endangerment to the human race not to mention the other millions of species on this earth that are going to be adversely affected.


  4. […] from video blogger Peter Sinclair’s interviews with scientists at the AGU Fall […]


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: