Trump (Part 4)

[claig]

Continuing discussion of the Trumpquake and populist rebellions

No-one can disagree with removing diesel cars from our roads

Imo this was a brown envelope job between our govt and the car manufacturers. What is disgraceful is that it was known by our govt scientists that diesel is dirtier than petrol and yet diesel vehicles began to be 'pushed' as the better of the two.

"Tony Blair introduced the ‘dash for diesel’ in the late 1990s to meet climate change targets. Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol wealthy countries had to slash emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, by 8 per cent over 15 years.

"Like other leaders, Blair was swayed by the motor industry’s argument that switching from petrol to diesel would lead to huge drops in greenhouse gas emissions.

"It’s true that diesels emit less CO2 – mostly they are more efficient and go further on one litre of fuel. However, in the 1990s the industry argued the average diesel emitted 13 to 17 per cent less CO2, a figure that turned out to be hugely optimistic."

MORE:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3246846/Toxic-facts-dash-diesel-Q-DAVID-DERBYSHIRE.html

Squishy - I agree with some of your points. However, I think that we disagree on whether the political processes involved in science are accepted (you) or fought against (me). To expand my point: We all know that science and politics are in a symbiotic relationship with one another ("Technology doesn't get developed unless it is financially viable to do so. Businesses don't change their behaviour without regulations, and scientists don't get their voices heard without lobbying."). This means that inevitably, we can never be sure whether the 'we used to think this but we now think this' quality of scientific knowledge is reflective of the normal process of science or the subjective interests of certain groups or wider socio-political processes (for example, modal thinking characteristic of a particular generation). The latter has become more acute in recent years given our changing relationship with 'expertise'. We have become aware of how political processes impact not only what gets researched (what's a hot topic and what isn't, e.g., climate change, autism, ADHD) but also findings (VW emissions scandal, to give one example) and public trust in science has been undermined. These processes never used to be so illuminated and it's actually a good thing for them to be so because it allows everyone to have a stake in knowledge production. At the very least, the public is demanding greater transparency and accountability in how science is conducted.

More about diesel. Apparently it was EU who okayed and promoted the diesel engine. I have somewhere an excellent article about how scientists knew that the use of diesel would be far worse for us, but cannot find it. As you know, diesel produces less C02 but much more of the NO and particulate pollutants.

"In a bid to reduce CO2 emissions in the 90s, Europe backed a major switch from petrol to diesel cars but the result was a rise in deadly air pollution.

"The tests were simply not stringent enough. They were devised by a UN committee based in Geneva called the World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations, which was dominated by people from the car industry"

That comment about diesel sort of agrees with what I was going to reply about VW. It's mostly a case of corporate greed, rather than science gone wrong.

I fully agree that scientific advancement, or what a "consensus" is at the time, depends on many factors, often not enough on strength of evidence.
However, that tends to happen mostly at the beginning of change.
And most scientists are not hand in hand with politicians, and in fact probably despise most of them. Lobbying is not second nature for scientists, on the contrary. :)

And I don't agree with the choices of examples of what gets studied and financed. Those are mediatic examples, not of what real research is being done.
If you run through calls to fund projects, or the full scope of Nature and Science journals (to name the most generic and more cited) it's way off what comes out in the media.
Much of it is basic science, or it doesn't appeal to the media.

Then you have what the media reports. I was on the C section and evolution thread and, when reading the actual paper, it turns out that the message is not quite the same as reported. That is a typical example, btw.

On climate change, there's quite a lot of research that revolves around environmental (of which climate is a subset) changes. It is an important body of research if humans want to adapt and know what to expect, so that they can prepare.

Climate is not an exact science, and there's a lot that has been learnt and must still be learned, including about mechanisms and causes. How much or little is human driven may be up for discussion, but it doesn't look like we are helping maintain a stable climate at all.
If you add to that the fact that fossil fuels are running out, there is a good case to
a) find replacements that are efficient enough by the time they are definitely needed
b) apply them as soon as possible in case our emissions do have an effect on the climate (this is not something I'd like to risk getting wrong)
c) prepare for the climate changes that seem to be coming

So basically, you think people should carry on with their planet destroying behaviours because you don't like the way you've been asked to stop?????

Bertrand - as a taxpayer, I demand greater transparency over the whole process from start to finish - what is funded, how and why. It's no longer enough to say, 'Because I said so because I know'. I want to hear, 'Because I said so because I've been funded by X for the reason Y to arrive at the consequence Z'. So yes, I object to how we are asked to accept findings ("Because I said so").

In my last post I may not have articulated myself very well - I talked about scientists "lobbying", but I didn't mean that exactly- I meant that there has to be an opposing force pushing against the principle of making as much money as fast as possible, but I am not sure exactly how to phrase that.

I don't think that science is as murky as you make it out to be - a big problem is the way scientific stories are often reported, but I don't think this is so much down to deliberate mass deception by the media so much as journalists not always having a full understanding of the subject matter, combined with the need for snappy headlines.

You talk about public trust, but I was trying to explain why I have come to the conclusions I have on the validity of climate change. I have no control over what the public thinks. No, I can never know for certain the motivations or biases of scientists on either side of the debate, but I can look at the arguments on both sides and make a balanced judgement based on that.

You mentioned our "changing relationship with expertise": Greater engagement is good, but it does not mean that the opinion of a random member of the public is as valid as that of an expert who has spent years studying a specialist subject. And I of course include myself as a random member of the public in that - to some extent we do have to choose who to trust, and I choose to trust the 97% of scientists with the credible, strong arguments over the 3% with the weaker arguments.

"At the very least, the public is demanding greater transparency and accountability in how science is conducted." : Science has always been fairly transparent, actually. Certainly compared to other areas. Look at the way the results of scientific studies are disseminated in certain newspapers if you want to see where the waters get muddied (eg. the Daily Mail and anything to do with cancer).
And I am a little uncomfortable by what you mean by "greater accountability" - accountable to whom? To the government? To mob rule?

Do you drive fourmummy?
If so, what do you do if you notice that your car is heading towards a possible hazard? Do you spend a great deal of time pontificating on the meaning of truth and relativism and whether the lampost is really there, and the philosophical implications of that, or do you take evasive action?

In your opinion, how certain do we have to be that climate change is false in order to do nothing? Because I don't like the odds right now.

If you look at recent papers, you can look at who funded the research and researchers are obliged to report any conflict of interests. Say, if they are funded by industry, government, or lobbies, for example.

You can look at project pages, and funders websites to look at their calls and the projects that got funded.

Not sure what more transparency you ask for.

Once again I cross posted with Lweji, and she's said it better!

Just came to say what Lwji said.

Interesting that climate change deniers never seem to be bothered about transparency when it comes to the 3% of scientists who support them...........

I don't like mutual pats on the back but you did a great job. :)
Different styles that complement each other, I suppose.

Lweji if in an earlier post I suggested that scientists are heavily involved in lobbying I didn't mean to, I used the wrong word - I sort of know what I want to say, but quite how to say it iyswim.
Basically, I was clumsily trying to say everything you've expressed in your last few posts!

It's all a bit of a diverison really isn't it? We're heading into relativist territory again - now that is an excellent way to really muddy the waters!

I do know some that do lobby. :)

Funnily enough, we tend to think that if we publish a seminal policy paper that is enough lobbying.

Anyway, obviously some scientists are involved at the top ranks of policy making in the European Commission and WHO, for example. But that is because they need the experts to say what's important.

In any research project (particularly by the EU) it is important that it is addressed how results will be communicated to the relevant stakeholders. Be it the general population, other scientists or politicians, so that the findings can have an impact and don't disappear into the obscurity of scientific jargon in a scientific journal.

By the way, as an illustration of transparency, anyone can check what the funding plans are by the EU in the Horizon 2020 programme:
Societal Callenge 12. Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials
ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2016_2017/main/h2020-wp1617-climate_en.pdf

Misswatch, any more news on more winning with Trump?

"After Meeting Trump, Japanese Mogul Pledges $50 Billion Investment in the U.S."

www.nytimes.com/2016/12/06/business/dealbook/donald-trump-mayayoshi-son-softbank.html?_r=0

Any news on the Jill Stein recounts?

Oh, bugger. There goes the interesting conversation.

Bertrand
Back to Trump then...
Here he is standing up to (shouldn't that be for?) one of "the people" (a Union leader) on twitter.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38252369

www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/07/donald-trump-retaliated-against-a-union-leader-on-twitter-then-his-phone-started-to-ring/?utm_term=.e555537151b4

I've read the NY Times link about the Japanese mogul. Very interesting. :)

"But the $50 billion investment pledge is not an entirely new initiative that SoftBank is undertaking. Instead, the money is projected to come from the Japanese company’s previously announced Vision fund, a $100 billion vehicle for investing in technology companies worldwide."

"The fund — which includes Saudi Arabia, a target of Mr. Trump’s ire during the presidential campaign, as a key partner — was always expected to strike a significant portion of its deals in the United States."

"As Mr. Son sought to compete against Verizon and AT&T with his investment in Sprint, he compared the quality of American wireless service to the air quality of Beijing. And he threatened to set himself on fire in the offices of Japan’s telecommunications regulator on at least one occasion ."

He sounds great.

It might pay off reading more than the headlines when posting links. It would save you from shooting yourself on the foot.

Yes, I read it too. Bizarre.

I wonder if he has an aide following him around with a fire extinguisher

squishy - yes that union boss tweet is shocking for its inappropriateness, aggression and sheer self-centered lack of regard for any personal consequences for others.

Good article in NY Times:
mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/us/politics/donald-trump-twitter-carrier-chuck-jones.html?emc=edit_th_20161209&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=19770864&_r=0&referer=

“When you attack a man for living an ordinary life in an ordinary job, it is bullying,” said Nicolle Wallace, who was communications director for President George W. Bush and a top strategist to other Republicans. “It is cyberbullying. This is a strategy to bully somebody who dissents. That’s what is dark and disturbing.”

Yes, and the following is an added danger:

"Mr. Trump’s message to his 17 million Twitter followers set off threats and other harassing calls to Mr. Jones. One caller left five one-minute messages, and two secretaries answering phones at the local’s headquarters have been similarly swamped."

"“It’s riled the people up,” Mr. Jones said. “A lot of the people who have called and been not very nice to me, they have been quite clear that they are Trump supporters and I’m an ungrateful so-and-so.”"

People then feel justified in bullying anyone who speaks out.

But it's not new or unexpected. It was clear that this was his personality, and thinking that it was campaign mode was simply wishful thinking. He couldn't act Presidential before and he won't act now.

It's really dangerous the way his tweets are often followed by death threats from his supporters against ordinary people - this is not the first time it's happened. He must be aware by now of the potential consequences of his tweets, but I expect he doesn't care. He has so much power already, and shows a shocking lack of responsibility.

A bit off topic, but I got really angry hearing during the coverage of the Article 50 case that Gina Miller had to be accompanied to court by bodyguards due to the number of death and rape threats made against her. The harassment and death threats leveled against anyone who sticks their head above the parapet is becoming a real threat to free speech.

More great news for workers in the US

Trump’s Labor Pick, Andrew Puzder, Is Critic of Minimum Wage Increases
mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/08/us/politics/andrew-puzder-labor-secretary-trump.html

As a summary:
against minimum wage increases
against over time pay
says machines are better than workers
uses almost naked women in ads for fast food (!. why?!)
and clearly has a conflict of interest, being an employer.
his ex-wife first accused him of domestic violence (recently Trump showed a letter from her with a retraction...)

But Trump says:
"... his extensive record fighting for workers makes him the ideal candidate to lead the Department of Labor,” Mr. Trump said in a statement."

He's also (like Trump) passionate about drastically rolling back regulations.
He has a history of fighting against workers, and ironically enough given Trump's anti-immigration rhetoric, is part of an industry that lobbies for greater access to (cheaper) immigrant workforces.
The US department of labor previously uncovered wage theft at his restaurants, now he will lead it. Talk about putting a fox in charge of a hen house...