Reply With Quote
We're they picked by citibank?
... are a talk-radio ignoramus and a career poisoner
The Department of Agriculture's chief scientist oversees more than 1,000 scientists in 100 research facilities: Trump's pick to run the agency is Sam Clovis, a climate-denying talk-radio host who not only lacks any kind of scientific degrees -- he didn't take a single science course at university.
Meanwhile, Trump has nominated Michael Dourson to head the EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention; Dourson's last job was at the helm of Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, the company that DuPont picked when it needed experts who would claim that its toxic waste wasn't so bad for the people who were imbibing it.
Here's a little taste of Sam Clovis, the talk radio host Trump picked to run the department that keeps us all from starving to death: "After the interviewer highlighted the widespread acceptance of climate change within the scientific community, Clovis responded by saying, in effect, that scientists were trying to fool him. 'I have looked at the science, and I have enough of a science background to know when I’m being boofed,' he said. (Pro Publica checked and found that Clovis had never even taken an undergraduate level course in any science.)."
And here's some on Dourson, who Trump says will keep us all from being poisoned every time we draw breath or turn on our taps: "In 2002, the company helped West Virginia set a safety threshold of 150 parts per billion (ppb) — a number that stayed in place from 2002 to 2006, and determined whom DuPont was obligated to provide with clean water during this period. That number was 150 times higher than the maximum safety level DuPont’s own scientists had determined in 1988 — 1 pbb — based on internal company research showing that PFOA was toxic to both workers and lab animals."
It was a good run when it lasted. See you in the Medicare hospital.
(Oh, .)
-----------------------------------------
http://boingboing.net/2017/07/21/we-are- ed.html
We're they picked by citibank?
what he needs to do is hire david copperfield.
make some disappear.
Do you think someone with no scientific background at all should be overseeing scientific work that affects a significant portion of our economy?The Department of Agriculture's chief scientist oversees more than 1,000 scientists in 100 research facilities: Trump's pick to run the agency is Sam Clovis, a climate-denying talk-radio host who not only lacks any kind of scientific degrees -- he didn't take a single science course at university
Do you think it should be a scientist with no background in administration or economics?
*DING*
Both science and economics knowledge would be preferable, but it would seem that a knowledge of science would be foremost in such a post.
Unfortunately for us both, the current administration has selected someone whose primary source of income for the past decade or two appears to be that of a radio talk show host. Not impressed.
you finally did it right
If scientists alone ran nasa they'd never get to the moon, as long as citibank or whatever didn't choose them I'll hold my criticism. It's not like I haven't been critical of picks like Rick ing Perry
https://news.vice.com/article/donald...curity-problem
Peter Feaver, a Duke University professor and political appointee in the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, took another whack at Trump in Foreign Policy last month, lamenting his "failure to talk responsibly or learnedly about national security." Feaver says Trump has "the least distinguished national security team in modern memory."
When I asked Feaver who was advising the Donald, he responded in an email, "I am told that some of the names are genuine 'formers,' including a few that [are not] 'nutcases.' Which I took to mean that some ARE nutcases!"
That is one thing we can definitely agree on.If scientists alone ran nasa they'd never get to the moon, as long as citibank or whatever didn't choose them I'll hold my criticism. It's not like I haven't been critical of picks like Rick ing Perry
Funny vein of pictures. His moment was one that lends itself to parody.
Good, the whole Global Warming/Change is a giant crock of pure .
I don't think you actually believe that. It has never been the case in govt or business that high level administration positions must be versed in the technical/scientific aspects of that which they are administrating. Seems like a case of you being partisan for the sake of being partisan.
And I'm not defending this particular guy, never heard of him before. Although a quick search shows he has a kid named Khan and that's good enough for me.
There's some truth to it, but a lot of it is fear mongering so the DemoKKKrats can charge their carbon taxes and the entire fallacy that is their profiteering from the fear mongering. Basically, the Left is pretending to care so they can fatten dem pockets. Stealing a page from Elon Musk's biography; How to be a Capitalistic piece of in Tree-Hugger clothing...because self-righteous, faux-morality Crusaders are easy to Manipulate".
I do actually believe that science education is very valuable in government, especially in agencies that deal with science. Doesn't matter who is president.
On a partisan note though: It seems very obvious that one party is waging a war on science, and one isn't. If you can get a stage full of national Democratic figures to all deny evolution, I will take that back.
http://www.salon.com/2015/02/11/evol...complet_guide/
Can't do that. Would a stage full of Democratic figures denying that a human life begins at conception or claiming gender is a choice count as science denial?
No, it wouldn't.
I don't think you actually believe that human life begins at conception. If you think you do, we can talk policy preferences, and you can lamely attempt to justify your position, as I point out the moral reasoning flaws (edit) and scientific realities you are almost certainly ignorant of.(/edit)
No, it wouldn't.
I don't think you actually believe that human life begins at conception. If you think you do, we can talk policy preferences, and you can lamely attempt to justify your position, as I point out the moral reasoning flaws and scientific realities you are likely not aware of.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
