The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[redpoint5]

Publicly funded science doesn't make the majority of discoveries. Therefore, they aren't responsible for the majority of patents. It doesn't matter anyhow, as the government isn't a business, it's a service.

"welfare, more perfect, progress science" is all subjective. BTW, the oath is not to accomplish those things, but to pursue those things. You can be pursuing something good and fail to do it well.

I made no mention of eugenics; only genetic engineering. Eugenics is involved with excluding certain persons from contributing to reproduction, while genetic engineering is concerned with excluding (or including) certain genes, agnostic of the individuals providing the base code.

Human genetic engineering is inevitable, so we might as well be thinking about it in terms of how to solve current issues. As technology increasingly advances the ability of the individual and groups of individuals to destroy, we're going to need a more thoughtful humanity. Trying to limit the destructiveness of individuals and groups is a fool's errand in the atomic age.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Publicly funded science doesn't make the majority of discoveries. Therefore, they aren't responsible for the majority of patents. It doesn't matter anyhow, as the government isn't a business, it's a service.

"welfare, more perfect, progress science" is all subjective. BTW, the oath is not to accomplish those things, but to pursue those things. You can be pursuing something good and fail to do it well.

I made no mention of eugenics; only genetic engineering. Eugenics is involved with excluding certain persons from contributing to reproduction, while genetic engineering is concerned with excluding (or including) certain genes, agnostic of the individuals providing the base code.

Human genetic engineering is inevitable, so we might as well be thinking about it in terms of how to solve current issues. As technology increasingly advances the ability of the individual and groups of individuals to destroy, we're going to need a more thoughtful humanity. Trying to limit the destructiveness of individuals and groups is a fool's errand in the atomic age.

looks like 73% of patents have been based upon discoveries made by publicly-funded research.I'm just reporting.Structurally all research is funded by the public,as corporations only use 'other people's money'.
The language of the US Constitution is defined within a narrow framework within the legal community.Every word has a specific definition and they were chosen on account of those definitions.I'm using Black's Law Dictionary.
It's pretty clear to me that Trump is violating his oath.
Eugenics is by definition genetics,whether you prescribe to it or not.If we're a nation under God,well,God says we're not of this Earth,we're not to love anything about this Earth,so what would be the point of genetics,other than to forestall a trip to heaven as long as humanly possible?
Public education,which included critical thinking would allow identification of sociopaths, and deal with them before they had a chance to hurt anyone/everyone.That would be a plus.Then you don't have to go to the trouble of attempting engineered people.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Sounds like a slam dunk win, you should go for it.
Only problem is when man made global warming is put on trial so far they have been losing, being thrown out or held up indefinitely.

It says a lot about trials and nothing about science.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

And this has nothing to do with the flood of illegal immigrants coming across the border?

The mosquito disease vector is migrating north with the warming.They're up in the N-E.Nothing is said of a trans-border origin.

[oil pan 4]

This is a country founded on rules and laws.
Not junk science like the Mann hockey stick graph.

[freebeard]

Structurally,there's no need for a President,Congress,or Supreme Court to have any involvement in a climate solution.However,it would require an informed consumer (formerly citizens)and that is as likely as a suspension of gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectio...ns_Decency_Act

It might take as little as changing Section 230 to break the social media's spell.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

This is a country founded on rules and laws.
Not junk science like the Mann hockey stick graph.

Section 8(8) of the US Constitution is 'To promote the Progress of Science,' like Mann's hockey stick.If that's junk-science,then so is light,heat,magnetism,gravity,centrifugal force,wind,tides,currents,meteors,clouds,buoancy,t aste,color,sound,aurora,electricity,vacuum,convect ion,lightning,waves,Coriolis effect,chemistry,physics,.............it would be endless.
Your free to believe whatever you choose.Just do it at your own expense.Some won't forgive your trespass.

[oil pan 4]

Most people are just like me.
According to Gallup they have found consistently that about 97% of likely to vote Americans don't think climate change, pollution or the environment is the biggest problem facing the country.
Then according to Reuters about 2/3 of Americans refuse to pay more than $10 per month or $100 per year to fix climate change.
So I'm just like the vast majority of people.

[redpoint5]

As long as people are more motivated by serving their party or ideology rather than serving people, they will fail to live up to the oaths they make. I've said it's an outrage who Trump appointed head of EPA, even if much of what the EPA does is junk.

That said, why should POTUS have the power to appoint heads of office in the first place? What makes a president qualified in these matters?

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

As long as people are more motivated by serving their party or ideology rather than serving people, they will fail to live up to the oaths they make. I've said it's an outrage who Trump appointed head of EPA, even if much of what the EPA does is junk.

That said, why should POTUS have the power to appoint heads of office in the first place? What makes a president qualified in these matters?

Their power is enshrined in the Constitution.Our founding fathers may have never anticipated the caliber of people who'd be able to attain the high office.
They were liberals.All educated,men of letters,not necessarily polymaths or renaissance men,but they read,they studied philosophy,literature,science,probably listened to their cabinet members,advisors,intelligence apparatus,etc..
Trump's perfectly authorized to nominate nothing but fossil-fuel lobbyists for all key positions,however we might wonder how they pass the scrutiny of confirmation hearings.Which says a lot about the caliber of US Senators and those who finance their re-election campaigns.
Obviously,a president no longer must possess any qualifications for the office.