Thursday, September 24, 2020

Climate Scientists' Worst Nightmare - Four More Years of Trump

The idea of Donald Trump winning a second term terrifies a lot of people, especially climate scientists. Climate change is only part of their worries. From the MIT Technology Review:

Daniel Schrag has spent most of his life working on climate change. He studied the planet’s ancient warming periods early in his career, served as a climate advisor to President Barack Obama, and is now director of Harvard’s Center for the Environment. 

But when he imagines the possibilities if President Donald Trump is reelected, climate change isn’t the issue he’s most concerned about. 

“I immediately worry about democratic institutions,” he says. “I worry about profound and deep corruption at all levels, including the Justice Department.”

“The good news is that four years later, or whenever this ends, there are still a lot of things you can do for climate,” says Schrag. “But that’s not true if we have decimated the basic institutions of democracy.

I heard similar responses again and again as I polled climate scientists and policy experts on what a Trump reelection would mean. After years of watching the administration unravel climate policies, subvert the rule of law, stack courts, politicize a pandemic, undermine the election process, and hint about third and fourth terms, the people I asked are terrified of what the president may do if he remains in office for another four years or more.


Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie Institution, said: “Well, first of all, there’s the question of ‘Will the US become a dictatorial, totalitarian regime?’”


Danny Cullenward, a lecturer at Stanford’s law school, replied: “There’s no climate policy angle to that story. The United States is then a failed state.”


Anonymous said...

I hate to be the bearer of more bad news, but for the second time this month, Trump has appointed a person who misrepresents, distorts, and disagrees with climate science to a science position at NOAA.


the salamander said...


This is a very, very long read.. chilling in its detailed complexity
and does not really touch on domestic inter partisan or civil war

Canadians should be mortified - horrified
We have a major Canadian political party that thinks this is wonderful
and is looking for ways to implement into their black ops
election strategies, wolf whistle it via American owned MainMedia
and blast into Canadian politics.. as if its religious dogma & bible

This is what its come to Mound..

The Disaffected Lib said...

First Legates, now Maue. Two climate change deniers, what else would anyone expect?

I like Canadian-born climate scientist, Katharine Hayhoes tweet: "For the second time this month, a person who misrepresents, distorts, and disagrees with climate science is being placed in a science position at NOAA."

What else would we expect of Trump?

“Normally, when people are chosen for high-profile positions relating to climate change, I’ve heard of them. I have no idea who this person is, other than I’ve seen him saying things about climate that are wrong on social media and in op-eds,” said Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler in reaction to Maue's appointment. “I suspect that he has the one and only necessary qualification for the job: a willingness to advance the agenda of climate deniers.”

"These appointments of climate science deniers to NOAA — the agency charged with monitoring changes in the climate system and informing Americans on this science — come at a time when there is rising concern over the Trump administration’s embrace of pseudoscience and apparent attempts to interfere with or attack nonpartisan scientific and public health agencies like NOAA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). A study published in April surveying federal scientists found a perceived loss of scientific integrity under the Trump administration."

The Disaffected Lib said...

Sal, I've exhausted my monthly quota of "free" articles from the Atlantic but I've read much the same elsewhere. No one knows, Sal, but we do know that we only have to wait five weeks.

the salamander said...

.. I suffer the same phenom Mound.. I am a reading freak, power reader.. since age 3 - had a lot of practice. Cannot possibly subscribe or donate to all.. I really admire The Tyee and The Medicine Hat thingy.. Strong journalism.. Bulwark remains free.. with great stuff from truly u happy old school conservatives

I can break it in chunks and paste it in comments.. but never without permission.. email works.. I still at the tod plus 1951.. at hot or gmail.. think my back channels to you now misdirect.. but I have battled my aging hardware & comms capabilities and also 'operator error' and proofreading on occasion

The Disaffected Lib said...

We're lucky Sal that there is so much content we can still access online.