Oh! Oh! I wanna play the "this is my only question" game.

Okay, okay, THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION ( imagine I'm saying that in, like, a Batman voice )

Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills?

...

( And no fair changing the subject, because THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION --so you have to respond specifically within the parameters that *I* want the conversation to be framed in !! )

Looks like a rhetorical question to me.

Wrong! You didn't answer my only question.

How do you feel about that?

Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills?

Yes

Now you answer mine. Use all your skills!

UT is 100% on target here.

First off - a citizen is responsible for learning facts so as to make critical and informed decisions. We educated everyone to create informed (and therefore moderate) citizens. Who then first learn facts before concluding anything. Not everyone remembers their education. So we require everyone to be educated.

Second and unfortunately, too many are making "Trump will do this" conclusions. We know that Trump has a long history of doing what a "senior German government official" said. He has a set of "emotions and reflexes" rather than a foreign policy. Who can say what he will really do? He lied so often in his campaign that, for example, he now talks about Hilary in respectful tones. And has dismissed silly suggestions that Hilary should be jailed. He fully endorsed women's rights. When that did not get him political support, he quickly became an anti-abortionist. What does he really think? Nobody really knows. We only know he appears to have no long term thoughts. He is clearly not a chess player.

And that is the point. Nobody can really say what his every decision will be because he does not even admit to previous claims and accusations. His long history is to say anything that is convenient at the time. We have no idea what he will do.

Learn facts. Learn who he is hiring for his administration. Only that is news.

Does that say what he is going to do? That is not his history. He has a history (like other business school graduates such as George Jr) of not reading memos and National Security Briefings. Instead he states his current "emotion and reflex". What will he really do? Nobody here or anywhere in the world can say based in facts.

We are in for a wild ride on a roller coaster in the dark. Since Trump is a front man (much like George Jr). He does not know basic economic theory, foreign policy, National Security briefings, and what the generals know. His history is to not do homework.

We have no idea if the coaster will go screaming down a hole or just gently round a curve. Best anyone can do is only learn who the players will be. And then watch. We do not even yet know if the players will be permitted to make decisions.

Only useful news says who the players will be. Nothing more. UT is spot on correct.

All patriotic citizens spend time every day becoming informed. Lesser citizens do not. Are therefore easily manipulated by emotions. Where will Trump's emotions take him? Knee jerk reactions were successful at getting him rich at the expense of counter parties, no taxes, and other unproductive accomplishments. Will that strategy play well on the world stage? Be concerned. Nobody has a clue. We only know it will make this world more volatile.

Only useful news says who the players will be and their histories. Speculation is not news.

Yes it's news.

It reported the thing the scientists are doing, the reasons they give for doing it, and some relevant events. It remarked several times that the specific issue of data deletion hasn't been threatened, and is probably unlikely, but that a more pressing threat is preventing the collection of new data.

I'll agree that it's not a great article, since it didn't go too far into that threat, since there are any number of quotes they could have had from Republicans saying that the research under threat is a money-making scheme by scientists, and claims from the Trump campaign that they intend to steer NASA away from "politicized science".

That's excellent, I hope they are effective at it.

the full quote then

Maybe it's let NASA do space, NOAA do atmosphere. NOAA's more AGW-oriented anyway, if that's how it goes down.

You start out saying that scientists working in fields under political attack by Republicans are hysterical, and then say you hope that the Republicans are effective in steering scientists away from science the Republicans politically attack.

No *a* scientist is hysterical, believing that federal data will suddenly become unavailable without warning or recourse.

*Published* Federal data, suddenly unavailable. It'll be erased from everyone's hard drive by the NSA.

Make a wager; I'll give you 10 to 1 odds up to $200. We'll give it a month, if any of the data is taken offline by Feb. 20....

Here's the thing man.

Most climate skeptics I know are not anti-science AT ALL. They are demanding, with full voice, the continuation of the study of climate.

The worst thing that could happen to climate skeptics would be if the data were to suddenly stop being collected on Jan 20th, 2017. I expect they feel that would be a wholesale disaster for them.

I'm not making any bets on what Trump will do in any regard.

But if I were in the situation where the ante for the bet was "make the backup", winning the bet was "I have the backup", and losing was "I didn't need the backup", I'd make the bet.

If their interest is in the science, sure.

But for the ones whose interest is in promoting fossil fuels, preventing environmental regulation, or for those who think that the science is a Chinese hoax or a liberal get-rich-quick scheme, it would not be a disaster.

It would be great for ALL of the stereotypes of the opposition!

Do you believe the end of the data would mean they win the argument? How would that work, exactly?

Wouldn't the argument just get bigger?

It most certainly would not end the argument, just the loss of valuable data we spent a fortune to document.

Just because a stereotype exists doesn't mean it doesn't apply to someone, and many elected officials and Trump nominees explicitly want to promote fossil fuel production, prevent environmental regulation, or have said that climate change is a scheme for scientists to get grant money. I've only heard Trump use the Chinese hoax line, and who knows what he actually thinks, except he certainly thought it would be a line that worked with his audience.Drawing out the argument even longer IS a win for those trying to stave off environmental regulations.

Ending the science is a win for those who think that climate scientists are perpetrating a hoax to get grant money.

OK well I do tire of this and am willing to admit your Kung Fu is stronger than mine, or whatever it was was just on display by us.

In any case, per Trump, the full court press of the press is now on to find the worst possible alarm bell to ring at all times. As if they didn't notice the bare result of the alarm bell of the last four months: his election.

~ could it be we might be able to think - you know, exercise our critical thinking skills - if they turned off the incessant and, in the end, useless alarm bell? ~