I believe the Republican skepticism of climate change is not born from disagreement but from the monetary influence of businesses who would be adversely affected from regulation and change.

Sleeping while out beds are burning indeed.

I don't think many people disagree that climate change exists. What's debated is what the proper solution is. Throwing public money necessarily diverts private resources. Who is to say gov't has a better solution? Would you really trust a bureaucratic monopoly led by Trump to come up with the best policy for energy? I don't think gov't should be in charge of picking favorites with regulations and grants.

Well depends on your definition of many. Seems like 35% of Americans dont believe climate change is man made. So I don't think this can be framed as just a debate between people wanting public vs private counter measures. There is also still a very large group of people (including many in the Trump administration) that are skeptical of the whole concept.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eig...

Having a large group of people (including the Trump administration) not "believe" (in this case, beliefs shouldn't matter, we should be looking at facts) climate change is exactly why this should not be a public issue.

Once it's public, people vote for a blanket solution or government officials (by no means environment experts) decide what to do. Private companies should be free to innovate and try multiple different solutions where the best one sticks.

Honest question: what incentive would private companies have to address climate change? It strikes me as a perfect example of an externality that these companies wouldn't be incentivized to change.

These agencies exist as an extension of the executive branch of government. Having them run independently with their own policy agendas can be just as dangerous or economically limiting depending on the policy positions of the time. Lucky for us, since we don't live under a regime, these policy changes allow us to refocus our efforts where necessary. I have a biotech friend who says that new grant directions will likely be directed towards infrastructure and defense. What is striking to me is that there is agreement that climate change can be a geopolitical issue multiplier. Effects on agriculture, ability of diseases to spread in a warming climate, mass migrations, loss of clean water, inevitable natural disaster relief expenses increasing. The evidence shows that this sort of thing should be considered a national security issue.

We've already asked you to stop abusing the site with primarily racial ideology, so we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at [email protected] and we believe you'll post within the guidelines in the future.

I think many would make the argument that not enough is being done environmentally and that more action needs to be taken. Cutting funding to the EPA and lifting restrictions are reversing the progress that we have made environmentally in the past couple decades.

No one is talking about staffing. We're talking about the executive gag order and similar policies. The number of employees is irrelevant if they aren't allowed to communicate their findings in a transparent way.

The gag order is a temporary measure until new leaders are in place.