Skip to main content

Chris Wright is executing project 2025 really well!

Image
By scooby

 According to the AP, the DOE secretary picked his own climate science review team. Scientists said this is against the law. 

Inaccuracies all over the place!

This is becoming commonplace in the trump regime. DOE is becoming like RFK's HHS.

https://www.eenews.net/articles/scientists-slam-inaccuracies-in-doe-climate-change-report/

Comments

Anonymous said…
I am not defending these decisions but I will point out that a lot of science got highly politicized in the last 10-20 years. Many people warned that this could undermine all of science in the future or leave it open for attack but no one listened to this or they in fact got attacked when they brought this up. Anyone in science knows that this was going on, yet they stayed silent because they do not want to get involved or they did not want to be canceled. I suspect that this will blow over in a few years but I hope science gets its act together and does not repeat the mistakes of the last 10 years. The same goes for universities.

This does matter to LLNL. One of the hand picked scientists by Wright is Steve Koonin. Koonin gave a talk at LLNL. I think Steve has some points on some things and is wrong about others. When he gave his talk Ben Santer threw a fit, attacked Koonin and said he would disassociate with LLNL if Koonin was allowed to give at talk. This was a horrible look for LLNL, Santer and climate science. He could have easily debated Koonin, given his own talk, or critique the talk by Koonin. The fact that he tried to have his talked canceled politicized the whole thing and undermined the scientific process. The defense of Santers actions by blog posters here and elsewhere just made the whole thing look even worse. Luckily, Koonin gave the talk, but many other speakers have been canceled around the nation.

Like I warned that this stuff was gonging to come back and cause issues with all of science, which as you can see is what is happening.
9/04/2025 10:52 PM
Anonymous said…
Climate science wrote it's own epitaph when it insisted on entering the public policy sphere and concluding that scientists should dictate public policy. Scientists don't dictate public policy, they only inform it, because policy is the art of evaluating subjective tradeoffs. For example, although global warning will mean significant changes, many detrimental, society may conclude that they are preferable to the cost of avoiding climate change. That decision isn't for science to make. If all public policy was solely determined by scientific consensus, we'd be living in a dystopian, socialist, police state world without free speech, government control of all industries, no patents or intellectual property rights, no borders or nations and no businesses or entrepreneurs aside from Elsevier and VWR. The Wright brothers never would have invented the plane and biologists would still be studying birds and building flapping machines to fly. Believe it or not, the world is more than peer reviewed science. Open a book or take a class in history to learn more.
9/05/2025 7:02 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more