The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[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.

[redpoint5]

When did POTUS require possessing any qualifications? What percent of presidents do you think could pass an economics 101 test?

I don't like many of Trump's words, actions or behaviors, but I was delighted that people are willing to elect non-politicians to office... now if only they would choose people with integrity, wisdom, and understanding that are non-politicians.

I'm for a federal EPA (which probably disqualifies me from associating with Libertarians), but with all organizations with stated goals, I require any decisions made to show precisely what problem they are addressing, what the cost of implementing the idea will be, and the expected benefit. Government offices don't exist to give the illusion of protection, they exist to give the reality of protection.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

When did POTUS require possessing any qualifications? What percent of presidents do you think could pass an economics 101 test?

I don't like many of Trump's words, actions or behaviors, but I was delighted that people are willing to elect non-politicians to office... now if only they would choose people with integrity, wisdom, and understanding that are non-politicians.

I'm for a federal EPA (which probably disqualifies me from associating with Libertarians), but with all organizations with stated goals, I require any decisions made to show precisely what problem they are addressing, what the cost of implementing the idea will be, and the expected benefit. Government offices don't exist to give the illusion of protection, they exist to give the reality of protection.

Former mayors and governors would have had much experience with economics as a matter of daily operations.Purely legal types I've no idea about.I don't know what the curriculum is for pre-law.
Cabinet members would provide economics support,such as it is,but some economists believe most economists are clueless,so where does that leave us? Cohen was a great economic advisor to Trump,but Trump wouldn't listen to him, does not listen to advice,so they just bail from the White House.
Trump's uneducated and he's not interested in it.He goes by gut feel.Wealth is what he's into.Anti-Christian.
Non-politicians would be okay as long as the believed in government,rather then wrecking it when they get into office.
As to the EPA,they're charged with protecting an asset worth $33-trillion a year,and they catch grief whenever they attempt to do anything with any substance.
The scientists know what to do.Either we accommodate them,or kiss the planet goodbye.At that point,what was the argument about economics?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Cohen was a great economic advisor to Trump,but Trump wouldn't listen to him

Which is why the POTUS should have fundamental economics down, so they can have a conversation with experts. Each domain of knowledge has its own language, and contending with ideas requires having the basic vocabulary down.

You've clearly demonstrated this importance by having learned the language of climate change science and understanding the principles of it.

Trump's uneducated and he's not interested in it.He goes by gut feel.

He's got a degree in economics, and seems to be fairly smart by my estimation. His gut got him into office, so he's no dummy. That isn't to suggest his values or methods are correct, but it would be a mistake to characterize him as unintelligent, despite his limited public vocabulary. As Peterson says, give the devil his due.

The scientists know what to do.Either we accommodate them,or kiss the planet goodbye.At that point,what was the argument about economics?

Scientists might know their domains of expertise, but the world is larger than a few narrow disciplines. Course of action requires more understanding.

There's a chance that I'll be on my deathbed one day saying I should have done more to forstall global warming. Perhaps there's a much smaller chance I'll say that I should have done less... most likely I'll say nothing of it. Tragedy befalls all of us, and it rarely involves environmental conditions.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

As George Carlin said, “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

That would be the definition of the median, not average. (Speaking of people talking outside their domain of knowledge! Don't take mathematical definitions from comedians).

[freebeard]

DoctorRandomercam took a wrecking ball to Carlin's Men and Women skits.

And don't take economic advise from cartoonists. Today Scott Adams vowed to single-handedly take down the country of China over their fentanyl production. I admire his ambition; and he can block people on Periscope, unlike the President and AOC (on Twitter).

Climate science is what it is. The economics is murky though. My bet is on the President outlasting those fresh[wo]man congresscritters. He's a (plain-spoken) businessman and seems to be doing Okay on the economy. He gets the wall and Mexico pays for (20,000) troops to patrol South of it.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by Vman455

That would be the definition of the median, not average. (Speaking of people talking outside their domain of knowledge! Don't take mathematical definitions from comedians).

Mean, median, and mode are all methods of determining average.

Median and mean (and mode) intelligence are the same in this example because the bell curve is normally distributed around the median.

[freebeard]

Animated graph shows how USA has become more polarized in last 20 years

It's still two-dimensional. Overlay two curves and it's better. Animate and it's better.

Compare to your Honda Civic's injector mapping.

[redpoint5]

I've wondered if it only seems we're more polarized, or if we actually are.

What can account for the shift? Perhaps when we were all listening to the 3 available moderate news sources, we were more moderate? Now that there are many biased news sources to choose from, we tend to listen to the ones we're most comfortable with and slide away from moderate views.

[freebeard]

Frankfurt School Marxism.

I heard someone today asking: if the USofA had conquered every country they defeated in WWII would the world be a better place today?

Ontopic: I suspect a 10-megaton air burst in a 5 mile-wide hurricane eye would implode the eye-wall and create a vertical column of circulation that would suck the hurricane dry.