Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Trump names Elon Musk, Uber CEO to advisory teamThis is certainly encouraging news. I have no idea how much exposure they will have or how much weight that their opinions will carry but encouraging none the less.While some of his choices are alarming I maintain a suspicion that he may make some real advantageous changes like the banning of lobbyists (that I heard about but have no idea if its true). There is some real value in rocking the boat every so often. If nothing else, it lets you know how stable the boat is.The best you can hope for is that they will be ineffective at doing anything.

By Presidential decree I presume.

I thought for sure that I wouldn't need a smiley face on that one.edit; the times they are a changinEdited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.

No that wasn't a joke. Are you saying that it is an impossible task?

I couldn't describe the mechanics of the thing for you but my point was that it was a good idea. Would it take much more than a few changes to accounting law?Anyway my real point was that not all of the voices will be coming from inside his head and that seemed encouraging.

This is what we look for most in our govts up here.

Access is one thing but a 9 billion/yr industry is another. It really shouldn't cost anything to have your govts ear.

The idea of being able to petition the govt is a good one and every citizen should have that ability. The idea of congregating opinions and petitioning the govt with the weight of the number who hold that opinion is a good one.The problem comes with the mechanism that allows the weight of money to replace the weight of individual opinion. Wealth makes one opinion heavier than the next. Perhaps that is not an entirely bad thing as wealth is a good indicator of having been right (or lucky or guilty) in the past. However, it certainly goes against the idea that, in a democracy, opinions should be held with equal regard.The fact that well monied professional advocates snatch up all of the access time is proof positive that the system is not working as intended or achieving the goals that make it a good idea. It is working in direct opposition to those goals. The access of unions, non-profits, citizen coalitions etc is miniscule compared to those who can afford an army of top level lobbyists. The vast majority of the lobbying that takes place serves commercial interests and essentially seeks to keep things the way that the are. I am not saying that industry shouldn't have an influence on the govt but I am saying that they shouldn't have all of the influence.The thought that you can spend billions to get the 'best' information into the hands of govt is retarded and about as far from the ideals of democracy that you can get. So yes I think it is a good idea to stick a wrench in the gears of this machine. You are conflating the issues. Lobbyists are not the same thing as the scientists at the DOE.

Obama made changes to the lobbying rules that had a positive if not substantial effect. Perhaps Trump can advance on that.The DOE is not primarily involved with the processing of fossil fuels but rather with nuclear energy/weapons and their proliferation. So the whole issue is a bit of a red herring. On top of that what ability does Trump have to purge the scientists at the DOE? How many would be left if he got rid of those who accept AGM? Why would he even bother?Consider the appointment of former CEO of Exxon Mobile Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State. The fear mongers will say that the sky is falling but when I look at Exxon's position on global warming I see

quote:

---

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

​

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

​

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.

---

So does Rex believe the science on AGM? Does Elon Musk? Why would he be looking to these people for their opinions if they do? Yes I am in the choir as well most of the time. Usually drunk and singing out of tune.

So doing something about lobbyists was in Obama's power set but not Trumps? I am sure that you know the answer to that better than I do but I would say that The Pendleton Act which

quote:

---

... provided that Federal Government jobs be awarded on the basis of merit and that Government employees be selected through competitive exams. The act also made it unlawful to fire or demote for political reasons employees who were covered by the law.

---

Also the fact that most everyone with any training as a scientist would be on that list. It would be like firing everyone at the bank who believes in compound interest. Perry is up against a steep learning curve. Do you think that he could actually get rid of the Department of Energy? Do you think that he will still want to after he learns what it is that they do there? So it doesn't matter if the guy making the oil deals with Russia accepts AGW but that scientist in the back room over at the DOE has got to go. Curious approach to getting rid of those who hold such opinions.In the end I agree that you (we) should be concerned about some of these appointments but there are robust mechanisms to keep these buffoons in line. Do you guys really think that the country has been taken over by Puritans on a witch hunt?

I was optimistic about the fact that he said that he wanted to fix it. Similar to the way that everyone is pessimistic about him actually doing some of the other things that he has said he would do. How do you decide the difference between what he says and what he intends to do? Is he more likely to get rid of all the Muslims than he is to get rid of all the lobbyists? This disparage between rhetoric and action is perhaps the greater problem. Not exactly. I am just seeking some balance to the assessment of how afraid we should really be and what it is that we should be afraid of. Is Perry really a complete fucking idiot? Sound bites and talking points aren't really the gold standard of appraisal. What happened in Texas under his tenure? I see that they built a lot of windmills and increased natural gas production which is better than burning coal. I also see that he tried to build more coal fired power plants but was thwarted. I personally have a fairly high amount of confidence in the legal structure that prevents people from just doing whatever they want be they Governor or President. There is a real disconnect between the dialogue and the reality. This is the problem. Not to take your quote out of context but I wholeheartedly agree that Trump's apparent inability to distinguish the difference between these two things is definitely something to worry about. I didn't think that science had opinions.