The informal task-force, a National Security Council-led initiative that wouldn't be subject to the same oversight and disclosure requirements as a formal advisory committee, would include scientists representing a mixture of opinions, including those skeptical of the role humans are playing in warming the planet, sources told the Post.
Administration officials reportedly met Friday to discuss how best to form a group of federal researchers that could scrutinize government climate reports. While some experts told the Post they worried such a group could harm national security by casting doubt on scientific consensus regarding the risks of climate change, others were skeptical the task-force would have a substantive impact given the amount of extant and ongoing research around the world. At the meeting, officials reportedly said Trump was displeased at the release of the National Climate Assessment, the findings of which Democrats have used to push for a Green New Deal that calls for cuts to carbon emissions.
"When it comes down to climate change, we are talking about thousands of independent papers, from everywhere, finding exactly the same thing: that the climate is changing, that we are doing it and that most often than not, the impacts are pretty bad," Camilo Mora, a geographer and environmental professor at the University of Hawaii, told the Post in an email.
>Under Trump, the government's environmental policies have changed substantially. In January, Trump signed an executive order allowing for more logging on public lands. In December 2018, Trump's EPA lifted certain emission restrictions on coal plants. In July 2018, Trump's U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed rolling back certain rules pertaining to the Endangered Species Act.
Looks like Camilo Mora doesn't know the difference between science and consensus.
Cameron Sanchez
For more reasons than I can count, OP, You Are a Faggot. But, I will point out just one, in a myriad of those reasons, that you may want to look at so it can guide your actions in the future. You see, it's your fucking link! WTF? You think anyone will click on that? I mean, how much effort does it really take to just backspace and delete everything off the end, up to and including the question mark? I didn't have any trouble myself. Here ya go, lazy nigger: businessinsider.com/white-house-reportedly-wants-task-force-of-scientists-to-reevaluate-climate-reports-2019-2 And while I'm harping on the subject of proper format (because conformity is super important, amirite?).. Where is your Archive Link? Also, I think it is a good thing to find ways around the scientific-consensus-establishment, their peer-review process and other such nonsense that reeks of the same stench that overly-zealous religionists have been slathering on us for millennia.
And out of all the verifications of OP's faggotry, links are THE LEAST.
I'm certainly no scientist, and I sure as fuck don't hang out with Donald Trump, so I suppose I've got nothing to offer other than anecdotal evidence
which is all the evidence I have ever needed Because I don't give a flying fuck what I read in an article, or what any particular scientist has to say.
Anybody who doesn't realize that the climate is drastically changing is either TOO YOUNG or TOO STUPID to know any better.
I'm not saying it's definitely a man-made problem, but it IS a goddamn problem!!… A really big problem. And although I said it a million times before, that's not going to stop me from saying it again: if you look at all the other abhorrent destructive wasteful disgusting things the human race has done to other life-forms and to our environment, you would have to be brain-dead not to realize there's a magnificent probability that climate change is caused by our terrible decisions.
Grayson Phillips
fuck you, dude
Leo Morris
I say the burden of proof is on people who claims it's NOT man-made. I say there is such a mathematical PROBABILITY that it's man-made, that it's up to the naysayers to provide rock solid proof that it's 'just art of an ongoing biorhythmic cycle'.
