… announced in the very near future. Or never.
I swear, if you told Donald Trump that scientists said don’t lick the metal railing in the dead of winter, he’d lick the metal railing. Then, he’d get stuck, and he’d blame Obama.
At this point, according to Nature, Donald Trump has gone longer sans science adviser than any recent president, by a good margin. The previous record was held by … wait for it …
… George W. Bush. Bush’s Marburger was confirmed on October 23rd 2001.
A few names have come up as possible picks for this post. David Gelernter, a conservative, or really, anti-liberal, computer geek and William Happer, a rabid anti-climate science denier have met with Trump.
You may remember this event involving Happer:
In 2015, the environmental group Greenpeace UK announced that it had caught Happer in a sting operation. Greenpeace officials, posing as representatives of an unnamed Middle Eastern oil company, offered Happer money to write a report on the benefits of increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 — while keeping the funding source a secret. Happer agreed, and maintains that he did nothing wrong. He says that he told the ‘oil company’ officials that any payments should be sent to the CO2 Coalition, a US non-profit organization that promotes “the important contribution made by carbon dioxide to our lives and the economy”.
“My views are that the whole climate hysteria is greatly overblown,” Happer told Nature. “I really do believe more CO2 will be good for the world.” That contradicts decades of climate-change research that has linked rising greenhouse-gas levels in the atmosphere to everything from shifting ecosystems to rising seas.
Here is a Graphic, from Nature, comparing various recent presidents’ science adviser nominations and confirmations. There might be a pattern here. A bad pattern.
This is what a war on science looks like
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Who will the sadistic Donald Trump’s next science adviser be? First, the great leader doesn’t need or want a science advisor. Why should he? He is an awesomely smart guy. But if the adults at the adult day care center force him to pick one, I think that we can be sure that it will be someone who can be counted on to cause the maximum amount of distress to the greatest number of people who care about the selection. Trump being Trump, the selection will be innumerate and scientifically illiterate. Since Trump is the Russian pick of the 2016 political litter, we can be sure that he will chose someone who will do his utmost to contribute to the dismantling of best and brightest government based science in the US. The ideal choice for Trump would be an anti-abortion, pro-fossil fuel, anti-vaccination sycophant who can sing the praises of Trump on a moment’s notice. A creationist psychopath who can promote creationism in any proposed national science curriculum would be an immediate front runner. The ability to turn off national interest in STEM education would also be a huge plus for our Russian overlord president. And did I mention gun violence? Look for someone who is an NRA member in good standing.
I’m thinking that Ted Nugent might be the guy Trump is looking for, although Kid Rock has a good shot at the position too.
I nominate Clint Eastwood, he can talk to an empty chair even if the orange one is seated in it.
When you look at all the anti-science positions this administration has staked out already, and the things it has done (wiping climate change research from current records and stopping it in the future, for the most front-facing example), then consider that anyone he would appoint would be as lacking in qualifications for that position as the other appointments are for theirs, and then add in the lack of clout a science advisor has in general, I’m not sure that the consequences of not having one for this administration would be any worse than having one.