'The White House Blocked My Report on Climate Change and National Security' (nytimes.com) 294
Dr. Rod Schoonover, who until recently served as a senior analyst in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research at the State Department, writing for The New York Times: Ten years ago, I left my job as a tenured university professor to work as an intelligence analyst for the federal government, primarily in the State Department but with an intervening tour at the National Intelligence Council. My focus was on the impact of environmental and climate change on national security, a growing concern of the military and intelligence communities. It was important work. Two words that national security professionals abhor are uncertainty and surprise, and there's no question that the changing climate promises ample amounts of both. I always appreciated the apolitical nature of the work. Our job in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research was to generate intelligence analysis buttressed by the best information available, without regard to political considerations. And although I was uncomfortable with some policies of the Trump administration, no one had ever tried to influence my work or conclusions.
That changed last month, when the White House blocked the submission of my bureau's written testimony on the national security implications of climate change to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The stated reason was that the scientific foundation of the analysis did not comport with the administration's position on climate change. After an extended exchange between officials at the White House and the State Department, at the 11th hour I was permitted to appear at the hearing and give a five-minute summary of the 11-page testimony. However, Congress was deprived of the full analysis, including the scientific baseline from which it was drawn. Perhaps most important, this written testimony on a critical topic was never entered into the official record.
That changed last month, when the White House blocked the submission of my bureau's written testimony on the national security implications of climate change to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The stated reason was that the scientific foundation of the analysis did not comport with the administration's position on climate change. After an extended exchange between officials at the White House and the State Department, at the 11th hour I was permitted to appear at the hearing and give a five-minute summary of the 11-page testimony. However, Congress was deprived of the full analysis, including the scientific baseline from which it was drawn. Perhaps most important, this written testimony on a critical topic was never entered into the official record.
Every lie we tell (Score:5, Insightful)
My favorite quote from HBO's Chernobyl mini series is this: Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth, sooner or later that debt is paid. Reality cares not for your ideological alignment, it will rear its ugly head in one way or another.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Too bad that HBO documentary lied plenty.
Re:Every lie we tell (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think you know what a documentary is, if you think HBO's Chernobyl is one.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Here's a lie the Democrats keep telling us, and quite likely themselves, that wind and solar energy can replace hydro and nuclear. The Green New Deal is the path to economic and environmental disaster. We will need to replace these hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants with new hydro and nuclear or the lights go out.
That doesn't mean we don't continue investment in wind and solar energy, it means an "all the above" energy policy.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
nobody sane wants to get rid of hydro.
I agree, nobody sane wants to get rid of hydro. Therefore we must conclude that AOC and the others that support the Green New Deal are not sane.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20... [wattsupwiththat.com]
In the energy arena, AOCâ(TM)s GND requires that fossil fuels, nuclear power and even waste-to-energy and large-scale hydroelectric facilities be eliminated from the US energy mix. Coal, oil and natural gas leasing and development on federally controlled Western lands would be banned, as would exports of those fuels.
This isn't limited to Democrats in DC.
https://alphanewsmn.com/hf-195... [alphanewsmn.com]
Additionally, HF 1956 does not allow for large hydro (hydroelectric dams greater than 100 MW in size) to count, either.
Color me cynical, but if the Governor and legislators are so worried about the impact of climate change in Minnesota, why would they outlaw the two lowest-cost, and reliable options from qualifying as carbon-free electricity? This does not pass the sniff test.
The Democrats are not taking a sane approach to solving this problem of CO2 emissions. There is no science in this party that claims to be taking everything scientifically.
If anyone wants to say that this is not the policy of the entire Democrat party then I w
Re: (Score:2)
1. "Democrats" aren't telling you any one thing. It's a huge party with a range of opinions, including some people who are apparently into coal.
I'm quite certain that there are Democrats that are "into coal" but they cannot speak for the party. The people that can will not support coal.
2. Whoever said they wanted to drop hydroelectric generation?
Lots of them.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and... [vox.com]
Let me ask you something, where can I find someone in a position that can speak on behalf of the Democrat party that will express support for new hydro? I tried finding it but the word "hydro" does not appear on any document I could find except when saying no new hydro should be built.
I don't want to see anything that s
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, I'll be happy when Republicans can stop the continuous, widespread, blatant lying in regards to the problem of global warming. Until anyone can even talk about solutions we have to agree to accept the reality of the problem first.
Re: (Score:2)
TV screenplay writers are your spirit animal
Re: (Score:2)
That's true. But how typical is it that the liars aren't the ones that suffer for it, but rather those left holding the bag.
The scumbag that made the comments on Dr.Schoonover's report are the kind that would eat the seed corn and leave nothing, because they know by the time it's a problem they won't be around to suffer the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Says the anonymous coward. How apt.
Banana Positions (Score:1)
analysis did not comport with the administration's position on climate change.
Sounds like a typical self-destructive regime that is doing its thing. Bananas for everybody before the Panama disease destroys them all! Can't wait to hear what their position is about religion, culture or separation of powers.
You Need A Better Title For Your Report... (Score:5, Funny)
National threats (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah, it's so unfair of evil dictator Trump to use tariffs. Only every other country in the world gets to use them, but not America when run by a Republican.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada isn't a threat, the movement of security-critical industries out of the US is the threat.
I can't tell if you are playing dumb, or if you've seriously never had this explained correctly before. Thanks, news media.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:National threats (Score:4, Funny)
Sure, you can be a pedant and claim that it was British forces and not Canadian since Canada didn't become independent until the Queen signed the Constitution Act of 1982 (not a typo!). But then, the Queen remains Canada's Monarch and is still on their currency so that defense/deflection is silly. Canadians helped burn the White House. That is fact.
More importantly, it's far too much fun to remind Americans that "Canadians" burned the White House down ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
More importantly, it's far too much fun to remind Americans that "Canadians" burned the White House down ;-)
I usually respond by asking how it's going up there in the 51st state.
Re: (Score:2)
a tiny ode to whoppernomics (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect you could more than double your total comprehension of economics in three minutes. Your ROI on watching the following clip would make the infamous Asian Tigers of the 1980s look like slow-drying paint.
Milton Friedman on Elections, Debt and Sugar [youtube.com] — 3 minutes
America is knee-deep in tariffs, and always has been. And when countries sit down, either bilaterally or multilaterally, since WWII America has always been the loudest and strongest voice at the table. America experiences privilege in every treaty of the modern era (less so in their isolationist past, more than a century ago). Any concessions America made at the treaty table were in the spirit of an older brother playing nice with a younger brother; their physical development is so lopsided, if the older brother were to press for every available advantage, the younger brother would simply quit, and they would never play together again.
It's actually in your own long-term advantage, where your power excess is that great, to leave a voluntary nickel for the other guy. The geopolitical considerations in treaty negotiation are so complex as to be nigh impossible to discuss on Fox News.
China is a looming threat. To some degree, highly westernised, democratic Japan is a natural ally. Furthermore, Japan knows a thing or two about martial culture. Sometimes a Japanese person brings a knife to a gunfight ... and wins anyway. Check out this guy named Hattori Hanzo.
Japan could certainly help out in deterring Chinese warm-up aggression against Taiwan (German annexations started in 1938, well before the war). Guess who was the primary author of Japans numerous present-day military restrictions.
Japan has a notoriously protectionist internal rice market. They actively propagandize their citizenship to believe that rice grown anywhere else would be worse than eating dirt. I've read several accounts written by Japanese chefs who emigrated to America as young adults, fully expecting to great a rice apocalypse, only to discover that American grocery stores are full of diverse, high-quality rice products they've never even heard of.
On a direct tariff basis, it looks bad. But this hardly holds a candle to how America subsidizes its corn growers through the ethanol program. Which, as Milton pointed out long ago, is deeply rooted in the American sugar subsidy.
Japan's internal rice cartel is powerful. A Japanese politician who walks away from a treaty negotiation with a broken cartel will not maintain internal power for very long. Probably not long enough to implement any other concessions that might have been made at the bargaining table, some of which surely touch on their weird, limbo military (still with the American chain around its neck), a small but important chit in Americas looming economic showdown with a grown-up China. So this isn't pressed (very hard) and in return, the Japanese pour you lots of warm saki, but very ca
Re: (Score:2)
That was a fine and impressive comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is invading! How do you folks in the northern states like those blaring air raid sirens! Seriously though, Trump still holds tariffs over Canada because they are a national threat. THAT is what constitutes a threat to current administration.
If the complaint you bring up on the Trump Administration is trade policy with Canada then things must be going very well.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Politicizing science (Score:5, Insightful)
There are, on the whole, few things I can think of that are less about honesty and truth than politics; 'selling used cars' comes to mind, as does 'dealing drugs' and 'organized religion'.
Politics and political agendas should never be allowed to influence, or in this case supress, science, and before anyone says it: this is far from the first time in human history that political agendas have done science a dirty. There is no 'conspiracy', 'liberal' or otherwise involved in this, never has been, never will be. There's a mountain of data to support it, and the mountain keeps getting higher. People who can't understand the science can scoff all they want and it doesn't change the facts, and all the political agendizing doesn't change physics. Remember the Indiana bill that wanted to make the value of pi be exactly 3? This is the mentality we're dealing with here, except on a federal level; is that the sort of thinking you want to align yourself with?
Real sorry that means you can't get cheap gasoline for your clownishly-large SUV that you drive around with just you in it 95% of the time, America, but the alternative isn't anywhere near as bad as they make you think it'll be.
Re: Politicizing science (Score:2, Insightful)
There are, on the whole, few things I can think of that are less about honesty and truth than politics; 'selling used cars' comes to mind, as does 'dealing drugs' and 'organized religion'.
There's nothing inherently dishonest or unthruthful or even unethical about dealing drugs, unless it involves cheating people.
Re: (Score:2)
In the scientific community, there is some disagreement on how much warming will be caused for CO2.
In the scientific community, there is a lot of disagreement on how to respond to global warming. That's where this guy's report comes in: he is researching security risks as a result of global warming. There is no scientific consensus on that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that CO2 ISN'T THE MAIN PROBLEM. There are many other gases that affect the heat cycle, its just that CO2 was picked because most people know of it.
That may or may not be true, but there is no question that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will have a warming effect.
Re: (Score:2)
There was one back in the 1800s that tried to make it 3.2. that came about because a scientist bullied a representative into submitting the bill then when the bill was up for a vote he pushed it using the same methods that the global warming people are pushing that today today.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians haven't changed that much since then so I stand by what I said.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Alabama is not Indiana. Google cannot help that.
2) That was a joke from a known satire site. Google could have helped on that.
3) Even if you use google to look things up does not mean you can understand what you find.
Re: (Score:2)
Commented transcript (Score:5, Informative)
Normally I have to ask how is the NYT lying, but actually reading the testimony along with official comments [archive.org]pretty much tells me what I need to know. Then looking at the public repository for hearing transcripts [house.gov] and sure enough, Dr. Schoonover's testimony is missing.
There is no evidence that coral bleaching is intensifying now or will in the future. Coral reefs have bleached and usually recovered throughout their evolutionary history.
This bold faced lie sets the standard for all the other comments in the document.
Centipedes, rise to his defense! (Score:2)
Holy shit, the government just directly silenced this guy! I implore everyone who complains whenever a bigot gets banned for spewing bigotry on some business' website where there are rules against spewing bigotry to rage, RAGE against this blatant act of true government censorship! Rise up, cry out, and let me hear your fury in the name of FREE SPEECH!
*crickets*
Climate Crisis in graphs (Score:5, Informative)
For a million years, we've had roughly the same CO2 levels. Now it's 30% higher than the last million years.
https://e360.yale.edu/assets/s... [yale.edu]
https://e360.yale.edu/assets/s... [yale.edu]
The change is incredibly fast.
With friends like this, who needs enemies? (Score:2)
Apparently these global warming alarmists can't do proper research before protesting.
https://www.cityam.com/bad-day... [cityam.com]
Several hundred climate demonstrators from a group called âoeReclaim the Powerâ descended on the Square Mile to picket what they had thought was the headquarters of Drax, only to find out that the gas and energy group had moved offices more than a year ago.
The activists had instead chained themselves to a block in Moorgate that is now occupied by Europeâ(TM)s leading renewables generator, Statkraft.
We have energy available to us today that is both low in CO2 emissions and profitable without subsidies. This is onshore wind, hydroelectricity, and nuclear power. These idiots are protesting against these energy sources for the silliest of reasons. They don't want energy that works because if it works then they have nothing to protest. They are professional protesters that cannot be de
Re: (Score:2)
We have energy available to us today that is both low in CO2 emissions and profitable without subsidies. This is onshore wind, hydroelectricity, and nuclear power.
Of which two are affordable. Hint: it ain't nuclear.
Re: (Score:2)
Call me back when wind and hydro can entirely replace existing carbon-emitting electricity generation AND step up to the task of powering an electric car fleet AND power the replacement for gas/oil heating in northern climates AND power the decarbonisation of various industrial processes (most notably cement production. Those kilns use a lot of energy)
The numbers simply don't add up. Wind+hydro can (just) cover the first part of the list but there's nothing left in the box to cover the enhanced requirement
WikiLeaks (Score:2)
Dude, this is exactly why WikiLeaks was created.
Just can't stop laughing..... (Score:2)
calling it national threat (Score:2)
is a misrepresentation. It's a global threat and it threatens first the weakest countries, so it's actually to USA advantage of we consider solely national security.
Of course there are other important aspects of our life that will take a hit from global warning so to say, but national securtiy is not one of them.
Well played, sir! (Score:2)
Thank you, professor, for your comments today. The Streisande effect will take it from here.
Living In Nawth Ca'lina (Score:2)
I am certainly not surprised. Rising sea levels are still illegal here, so far as I can discover.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry... [huffpost.com]
Re:Employee throws hissy fit (Score:4, Insightful)
Because, you stupid sonofabitch, it's State Department work product regarding national security and he'd lose his job and probably be charged with a crime.
Slashdot climate comments are historically some of the stupidest imaginable.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't lose his job. Work on that reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:3)
He talked about it, it's not classified or he wouldn't be able to talk about it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even close to true. As has been pointed out elsewhere in this discussion, there are varying levels of classification. Just because a document is classified does not mean someone cannot say that the document exists.
Where do you get these cockamamie ideas of how things work?
Re: work product regarding national security (Score:2)
Therefore it does not need to be classified. Therefore, leak the f*cker, ASAP.
Re: (Score:3)
A) You do not know what classification level his paper was.
B) there are TONS of papers that the US taxpayer has paid for that the US taxpayer will never have access to due to classification. Oh, and FYI, there are many classifications! not just the three you know of that the DoD has. The State Dept (his employer) has their own classification system.
so, please stop talking out your ass.
Re: (Score:1)
But now, the fact that he is not being allowed to testify in open session and Congress is NOT going to get the report would seem to indicate that they are using some legal or quasi-legal framework to stop him.
Re: (Score:1)
No, not nearly enough hate for stupidity.
Re:Employee throws hissy fit (Score:5, Insightful)
Did the paper provide any solutions?
Because problems don't exist until you know the solution to them.
Re:Employee throws hissy fit (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, none of that matters if you insist there's no problem, because you can't imagine the problem being solved. Even that wouldn't be so bad, if it didn't preclude seeing the consequences of doing nothing.
The bottom line is that nature doesn't owe us anything. It certainly doesn't protect us from the consequences of our actions.
Re: (Score:2)
Work wasn't appreciated, after some whining gets 5m with the boss' boss. News at 11. Why is this even important, I'm sure there are plenty of papers being written across these institutions that never see the light of day.
Did the paper provide any solutions? Why don't you just publish it on Arxiv so we can all take a look at it?
Generally the problem with climate change science is not that it exists (we all agree to a certain degree although the impact models vary wildly), the problem is that everyone is proposing their own model to graph out climate change and then ends with "if we don't do SOMETHING, we will all die in x years". Fine, then find me a SOMETHING that is financially, economically and politically viable.
Nuclear works, the left doesn't want it even though the worst case scenario (Fukushima) has virtually no impact on human health - much less than arsenic and lead leaching from solar panels that takes up space from potential forests or agriculture and the impact on factory workers in the 3rd world production process. Solar panels and wind works, but the right doesn't want it because it requires massive government intervention to not only pay for it but also to take land from federal nature reserves and private people to put it all on. And so we go on and on. I believe a combination of both will be necessary until we luck into a fusion reaction that's sustainable and even then, we still won't want "nuclear power" even though it would be virtually free.
I don't agree with everything you wrote, I just thought I'd pull it out of the -1 moderation pit for more people to see.
Go ahead, mod me down too. You'll burn your mod points faster than I'll burn my karma.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally the problem with climate change science is not that it exists (we all agree to a certain degree although the impact models vary wildly), the problem is that
The problem with climate change science is that ultimately it undermines the petrodollar. There will never be a proposed solution that is financially, economically and politically viable, because certain people's jobs will rely on not understanding it. The goal posts will always be moved.
The only countries that can even threaten the status quo and not get destabilized or invaded are nuclear armed.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Note that it was the Democrat controlled congress who limited his testimony... But orange man etc etc
This pretty much directly contradicts what Schoonover said. FTFSummary: "...the White House blocked the submission of my bureau's written testimony..."
Y U do this?
Re: (Score:1)
The executive branch has no authority over committee management in the legislative branch.
The article writer assumed political hate would trump highschool civics. He was right.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Congress can ask for whatever it wants. The Executive can block some things, but Congress can sue to compel release/disclosure, IF THEY CARE.
Also, IF THEY CARE, they'd give him more than 5 minutes. They can also get lucky when it "leaks" to the press, then it's public and fair game, IF THEY CARE.
Hint: THEY DON'T CARE.
Now ask yourself WHY that is.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Note, that is a completely false statement. The Democrat controlled congress could not receive his full testimony because the White House blocked it.
Re: (Score:1)
So prove me wrong. You have no argument.
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Please share your sources.
So we may evaluate them and point out possible problems in your research methodologies.
On my side (moderate) the most dyer predictions with climate change, doesn't have human extinction as we as human can adapt better then most organisms. However we would be suffering from a collapse in the ecosystem. Food Shortages, Flooding, and Extreme Weather battering our infrastructure. We as humans can survive this stuff. But it will be expensive, and painful to live.
Re: (Score:3)
"dyer predictions"?
Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
They are generally quite dire predictions. Accurate too, though.
Re: So what? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So what? (Score:4, Informative)
Please share your sources.
On January 20th, AOC said "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change."
She later tried to walk-back the statement, and said it wasn't supposed to be taken literally.
Here is a source that also covers some of Trump's idiotic statements on climate change: Fact-checking Trump, AOC climate claims [cnn.com].
Evidence-denying hyperbole on either side is not helpful. It just provides more ammo to the opposing extremists, and hollows out the middle where the solutions lie.
Science based policy? (Score:1)
The truth is somewhere between "The world is going to end in 12 years" and " Climate change is a Chinese hoax"
Bottom line, don't look to politicians for a science education. Too bad those same politicians are preventing the public from seeing the taxpayer funded research. I'd much prefer science based policy without the proviso "except where the science doesn't support the policies."
science denier do not care (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretending a baby isn't a baby in order to destroy it because of the social costs of recognizing that life is a spectrum ... does that qualify as ignoring the science?
Your glass house has tons of holes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Congratulations, you saw a link to CNN and got your CNN zinger in. Next time, consider contributing meaningfully to the conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
We as humans can survive this stuff. But it will be expensive, and painful to live.
Maybe some will survive. Probably not most.
So it won't be painful to live through for most.
Re: (Score:2)
which does not mean it won't be painful for them...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:1)
And the petrol industry makes millions of millions polluting our air.
Re:Money (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought the other idea behind carbon credits was that the supply would reduce over time, so the price would go up, and eventually a polluting company would find it impossible to make a profit. Before they reached that point, their shareholders wouldn't accept lower dividends or share prices, and would insist the company clean up. Or am I missing something obvious?
Re:Money (Score:5, Insightful)
Other than now they have to buy extra credits.
Actually, due to generous political donations, many big polluters were grandfathered in, and given free credits. So not only do the credits result in no emission reductions, but they are also a barrier to entry for new competitors.
Carbon credits are a really great idea in theory, but they don't work well with real world corruption and cronyism.
A straight carbon tax would work much better, but is a political non-starter.
Re: (Score:3)
Canada is applying a carbon tax to things like gasoline sales, with the payments returned to the individual taxpayers. Oddly enough, the conservative, low-tax parties are screaming about it being bad to reimburse people.
You don't suppose it's all just an excuse to slang their political rivals, do you?
Re: Money (Score:5, Informative)
From what I can see (I googled and read a couple of articles), the rebate isn't the amount paid by the individual, it's a per-household rebate based on the number of people in the household. So a household will get the same amount of carbon tax rebated regardless of how much gas they buy. But of course the tax they pay is proportional to the amount of gas they buy. Net result is that the system does provide an economic incentive to reduce consumption. Not only of gasoline but also of electricity and natural gas used for heat, etc., because all of them are going to have carbon taxes slapped on them, then those taxes will be redistributed.
Re: Money (Score:2)
Ah, well that makes more sense. Thanks.
Re: Money (Score:2, Troll)
Al Gore has several sources of income, that he made millions on carbon credit schemes doesn't mean it was his ONLY or even LARGEST source of income.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
What type of Nonsense are you talking about Pro-Climate Change policy? At this point we are just trying to get universal recognition of the problem.
The Science on the topic is clear. However Policy Actions that will slow it down require changes. People don't like change, and the fact that Rapid Climate Change is still slow for most humans, they just don't believe in it. Because of the following.
1. The changes well require changes. Most of us have gotten what we did by doing what we do. Changing it is s
Re:Money (Score:5, Informative)
Do you not remember the Solyndra debacle or all the other tax-payer funded "green" failures?
Do you know that the government actually made a tidy profit from funding green programs? Some of them failed (Solyndra) but many more succeeded.
Oh, and if we look at failures, how about a $50 billion "future soldier" project that failed to produce anything of note?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Money (Score:2)
Tom Steyer, and up until Obama left the Oval Office the entire US Gov't.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Do you have sources on this?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well it is interesting that you assert the party to blame is other than what the summary states. It is even more interesting that your argument makes no logical sense whatsoever in that context. But the most interesting thing is that, since it was stricken from the official record, we have no way of knowing the truth, so your little tantrum here has just as much merit as his. Except that you're posting anonymously on a internet forum and he is the actual scientist who did the research and has the most cr
Re: (Score:1)
AC's argument makes perfect sense. There's no way that was the official stated reason, and Democrats run the House - that's a simple fact.
Re: (Score:1)
And so you've completely ignored the probable explanation that the same executive order that blocked his testimony also blocked its entry into the record. And you claim to think I'm the one racing to blindly defend a side. Now I'm sure you're a shill and not merely stupid and projecting.
Re:Uh... NO. (Score:5, Informative)
Now that's very interesting - that the DEMOCRAT controlled congress who supports climate change theory and who absolutely detests Trump blocked your entry into the official record. Why would that be?
The Bureau of Intelligence and Research (and really, the State Department) is under the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Intelligence_and_Research). It was the White House that blocked the entry into the official record. The summary states this, additionally the Times article has a link to the original article about it. The associated paragraph says:
But in a highly unusual move, the White House refused to approve Dr. Schoonover’s written testimony for entry into the permanent Congressional Record. The reasoning, according to a June 4 email seen by The New York Times, was that the science did not match the Trump administration’s views.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like elections have consequences!
Except that the nature doesn't care about elections or wishes.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to Karen Silkwood.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody cares. Those who can't, teach. Go back to teaching.
If you don't find being a tenured professor of chemistry impressive, you're an idiot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'The White House Blocked My Report on Climate Change and National Security'
No, it didn't. Just another failure with TDS trying to score points by bashing Trump. Nothing to see here.
Precisely. He can talk all he wants about what he wanted in this report, he just can't have the report be given the stamp of approval from the White House.
You want to fight climate change? Then advocate for an energy policy that will reduce the CO2 output in the USA. This needs to include onshore wind, hydroelectric dams, and nuclear power, with some natural gas to bridge this transition. What we have now is the Democrats promoting a policy that is calling for an abandonment of hydro and nuclear in the
Maybe don't get your science from alt-right source (Score:3)
"Zero Hedge or ZeroHedge[b] is described as a "markets-focused" blog,[4] that presents both in-house analysis, and analysis from investment banks, hedge funds, and other investment writers and analysts. Zero Hedge, per its motto,[a] is bearish in its investment outlook and analysis, often deriving from its adherence to the Austrian School of economics and credit cycles.[5] While often labeled as a financial permabear,[6][7] Zero Hedge is also seen as a source of "cutting-edge news, rumors and gossip about t
Re: (Score:2)
You need to learn what an ad hominem is. If I said that what you said was worthless because you chose a username of buttfuckinpimpnugget that would be ad hominem. To point out that the argument was only supported by a clearly biased source is not an ad hominem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)