Be afraid. Be very afraid.

How would Trump accomplish something like that?

I don't believe that the president has such power under the constitution, and neither should you.

Okay, so the "presidential degree" answer was a joke. Fair enough.So what did you mean by this? Was that also a joke?

What I am expressing is doubt that Trump can do much about lobbyists other than by making rules for folks working for him and his appointees. Trump is not a member of the legislature. I asked you how you thought he might do it, but your answer was a joke.

So you believe you've heard something about which to be encouraged. You even think Trump's proposal is possible although you have no idea how.Let me play a bit of devil's advocate.A lobbyist is a person petitioning the government and advocating for action. Those actions may be anything from selecting who ought to be on a postage stamp to what recommending what position ought to be taken on any issue imaginable. Ideally those folks would be well informed experts and scientists with relevant information about facts and issues that on which government itself has little to no expertise.Given that and the first amendment, just what kind of restrictions do you think would pass muster. Do you imagine that every person petitioning the government must do so on a first person basis only, getting off from whatever work they need to do to support their families or would it be more efficient in some cases to have a professional who knows the ins and outs of the complex government to sit in a senator's office and wait to meet with him.I understand the desire to drain the swamp. Here is how you do it Trump style:

quote:

---

Donald Trump’s transition team has issued a list of 74 questions for the Energy Department...

​

The questionnaire requests a list of those individuals who have taken part in international climate talks over the past five years and which programs within DOE are essential to meeting the goals of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan.

​

Thousands of scientists have signed petitions calling on the president-elect and his team to respect scientific integrity and refrain from singling out individual researchers whose work might conflict with the new administration’s policy goals. This potential clash could prompt a major schism within the federal government, with many career officials waging a battle against incoming political appointees.

---

That's right. We're going to clean out that stinky swamp of scientists and researchers and get some new denizens. Let's drain out that expertise and get in some deniers.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You are preaching to the choir. I know that there is a problem. What I am wondering is why you are hopeful that president elect Trump is likely to fix the problem. I am not conflating issues. I'm pointing to something that is more indicative of what Trump might actually accomplish, something not very hopeful and comparing that to your hope that Trump might accomplish something outside of his power set. In short, Trump's draining of the swamp promise seems more likely to include things such as making the Departments of Energy, Education, and the EPA into dangerously ineffective nothings, and unlikely to include getting the lobbyists out of Washington.About the only thing about Trump for which I am optimistic is that he is less likely to needlessly provoke a fight with Russia than Clinton might be. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Thanks for your answer. At least that's something substantive. The Department of Energy conducts and funds research on alternative power sources, and regardless of whether they are primarily involved with fossil fuels, they do have significant input into clean energy technologies are part of Obama's energy policy. So the issue is not a red herring. Trump's appointee to the Department of Energy can do whatever he decides to do. He will be appointing a large portion of the managers at the agency who have the power to evaluate, hire, and fire. Is your question serious? What would prevent them from letting go scientists based on a list of AGW proponents other than the fact that the department refused to provide the list?If that leaves too few scientists to be effective, well, Perry wanted to close the department down anyway. How many scientists are needed to enforce a policy of giving the oil companies exactly what their scientists ask for anyway? I don't see that Tillerman's opinion on AGW is important here given that he is the Secretary of State. It looks as if what is valued is Tillerman's opinion on how to make oil deals with Russia.Elon Musk is definitely not an AGW denier, but he's also not being appointed to either the EPA or the Department of Energy. Who did get appointed to the EPA?
Scott Pruitt, a climate change skeptic. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

More of a continuation. After the previous governor was elected, the legislature expanded the governor's power, and now they decrease it back to what they tolerate when the governorship is held by Democrats. The Republicans are also tinkering with the makeup of election boards to make them more amenable to partisan oversight.McCrory is gone because he became the face for the most abusive things the Republican legislature did over the last 8 years. However McCrory was far more moderate than was the legislature, and in fact, McCrory was the only NC Republican to lose this past election.I expect that governor elect Cooper is going to have a hard time making changes in NC. The republicans still have a veto proof majority in the state legislature. His efforts are probably best spent in the bully pulpit and in getting more Democrats elected over the next four years.

UDid Obama put an end to lobbyists? Did he really do anything substantial? Let's recall that at the time I asked my question you indicated that you had no idea how Trump could do anything about the topic, while still expressing optimism that he would fix it. You seem to be arguing that having an AGW skeptic as president, head of the EPA, and head of the department of energy is nothing to worry about because those folks are all incompetent?Yes I do believe that Perry can do some serious damage to clean energy projects associated with the department of energy simply by moving money around and starving off the projects he does not want to continue. That certainly would not violate the Pendleton act, which is not really that strong a defense against being fired for having a particular scientific opinion rather than a political opinion. I respectfully disagree. The folks in charge have the power to substantially purge their departments of any efforts towards AGW amelioration simply by how they allocate money and effort. They also appear to be collecting names of AGW active scientists. If you are a scientist who fights upstream, then you might well be gone. Do you really think that the US is going to continue participating in climate accords after Obama is gone? What has Trump promised to do about that?ABE:The Pendleton Act prevents firing due to political party affiliation, and nothing more than that. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Add fact.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Science provides informed opinions. All scientific conclusions are to some degree tentative.