
Trump Administration Hardens Its Attack on Climate Science - whack
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/politics/trump-climate-science.html
======
jedberg
The biggest issue we're going to have is that at some point someone else will
be in charge, and the science will resume, but there will be a big hole in the
data, because this current administration is no longer funding the collection
of critical data for climate models. We won't even really feel the effects of
this for probably a decade or more, when the models finally see the effects of
the lack of data.

~~~
SlowRobotAhead
Who is not collecting data?

~~~
evo_9
Godless untrustworthy liberals, duh.

------
afpx
So bizarre. The US defense department even says that climate change is one of
the largest threats to US security. So, basically the Trump administration is
pure politics.

~~~
danans
> So, basically the Trump administration is pure politics.

Every administration's positions and policies reflect their politics, and
their donor base. This one isn't different in that way.

This particular administration's positions represent the interests of the
fossil fuel extraction industry, whether via the appointment of fossil fuel
industry executives to positions of authority over environmental policy, or in
the leniency by the administration toward particular authoritarian petro
states like Saudi Arabia and Russia.

------
cowwithbeef
It would be a much more accurate article if instead of "climate science" it
said "climate change prediction and mitigation."

------
fuddle
The Daily podcast covered this story aswell today -
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/podcasts/the-
daily/trump-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/29/podcasts/the-daily/trump-
climate-science.html)

------
yathern
This is mostly unrelated to the point of the article, but I noticed that Trump
in this article is repeatedly referred to as "Mr. Trump". Only once as
"President Trump." This seems a little bit out of the ordinary to me. I can't
recall Obama ever being called "Mr. Obama".

This isn't a criticism at all - but simply piqued my curiosity. Is there a
reason for this? My only assumption is it's meant to be a minor indicator of
the author's sentiment regarding Trump. Or is it just common NY Times style?

EDIT: It appears it's simply a well document common style decision. I should
have looked it up before posting!

~~~
likpok
It seems to be a stylistic choice amongst some major publications. The first
time they say "President Foo", the second time Mr. Foo.

From the Times directly: [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/reader-
center/why-does-ny...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/reader-center/why-
does-nyt-call-president-mr-trump.html)

And NPR discussing the same style for Obama
[https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2011/10/12/1412934...](https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2011/10/12/141293477/why-
do-you-call-him-mr-obama)

------
microcolonel
This is an opinion piece with a red hot flamebait title and a buried lede.
Surely there's a better way to start this conversation on HN.

~~~
RobertRoberts
Anyone who is voting down this comment should checkout the article.

Any journalist that calls the President of the US "Mr." instead of "President"
is trying to belittle them.

If they writer showed respect and stuck to facts instead of baiting, then it
would be more impactful to thoughtful and intelligent people.

Since that is not how it is written, it comes across as an appeal to emotion.

~~~
mattnewton
This is just common NYT style. [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/reader-
center/why-does-ny...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/08/reader-center/why-
does-nyt-call-president-mr-trump.html)

It’s common elsewhere too. Here is a cbs news article talking about the style
(using Mr. Obama in this case). [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-disrespect-
in-calling-the-pr...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-disrespect-in-calling-
the-president-mister/)

Discrediting the article’s tone is easier than attacking its conclusions, but
that’s not how we have a productive discussion, and I hope we can agree it’s
not useful.

~~~
RobertRoberts
If my point was to discredit it's conclusions, I would have.

I pointed out that the article was appealing to baser instincts by it's
writing methods.

Everyone who think's I support Trump (I don't) or think climate change is hoax
(I don't) assumed this. Nothing in my comment indicates this.

Maybe people downvote based on emotions as well?

------
danielovichdk
To me, climate change is not such a big deal in terms of the human species.

My belief is that we will eventually feel the impact from the earth, made by
ourselves.

So it's beyond climate change. We have fucked the earth up to a starte where
we can't go back.

But. The earth has a tendency to regulate itself and take care of itself. It
will wipe out humanity if it needs to and then time will continue.

We are not so smart as we believe, and out arrogance will be a deadly.

~~~
xtreme
> But. The earth has a tendency to regulate itself and take care of itself. It
> will wipe out humanity if it needs to and then time will continue.

There is no evidence that the Earth is sentient and assigning needs and wants
to it is fallacious. Geological records show that the Earth has gone through
several eras where life flourished followed by major extinction events. If we
want to achieve long term stability for the human civilization, we need to
achieve the power to control the climate and transform landscapes. Of course,
we need to do it judiciously; but not developing such capabilities is shooting
ourselves in the foot in the long run.

