McCarthyism: Trump Team Hunts For Names Of Those Involved With Obama’s Climate Change Plan

[theDoctorisIn]

Ok, then be specific. If not posters here, who are you talking about?

Who has the government fired?

It's late for me, so "hunting down" would be more precise. The terminology as used by the OP.

But the current government has engaged in the "hunting down" and silencing of global warming critics.

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20160526_ClimateChangeLetter.pdf

Who are you talking about, specifically?

Please, tell me who has the government "hunted down"?

Don't post hysterical political grandstanding and fearmongering, I'm asking for examples of it actually occurring.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Who "silenced" you?

You seem to be posting just fine.

That's not what I meant.

Surely you know what McCarthyism is, right? It's a tool frequented by people in the climate discussion to silence or discredit others.

I do know what McCarthyism is - but I'm not sure that you quite understand it.

How have "people" used "McCarthyism" to silence anyone in the climate disscussion?

Again, I see hundreds, if not thousands of posts on this board discussing climate change. Is there a Congressional subcommittee or other government agency investigating these posters that I'm not aware of?

I think the general issue is about DEMONIZING to DISCREDIT anyone who questions validity of global warming arguments.

I d say the equal and opposite reaction is equally wrong if it seeks to shut down or punish people for speaking their opinions and beliefs.

If it isn't fair for global warming advocates to deny and undercut opposing arguments, it isn't fair to undercut and target them either!

We're not talking about "fairness", or "undercutting opposing arguments". We're talking about direct government retaliating against people for arguing a position.

 

[Nia88]

I will never understand why Republicans are against having clean air and a toxic free environment. Do they not need clean air? Do they want their houses under water?

 

[francoHFW]

Here's hoping Trump can keep the bought off shyttes from destroying the sanity...

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The people Trump's hunting down are trying to make the US environment healthier and safer.

No they aren't. They have gone way too far in trying to enforce environmental standards. This, for example.

Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property

No, those aren't the people that Trump is "hunting down".

We're not talking about rogue EPA officers making stupid decisions, we're talking about DoE researchers who've dared to do their jobs while Obama was President.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Ok, then be specific. If not posters here, who are you talking about?

Who has the government fired?

It's late for me, so "hunting down" would be more precise. The terminology as used by the OP.

But the current government has engaged in the "hunting down" and silencing of global warming critics.

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20160526_ClimateChangeLetter.pdf

Who are you talking about, specifically?

Please, tell me who has the government "hunted down"?

Don't post hysterical political grandstanding and fearmongering, I'm asking for examples of it actually occurring.

Sigh.

No so much direct action, as consideration to do same.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The people Trump's hunting down are trying to make the US environment healthier and safer.

No they aren't. They have gone way too far in trying to enforce environmental standards. This, for example.

Wyoming welder faces $75,000 a day in EPA fines for building pond on his property

No, those aren't the people that Trump is "hunting down".

We're not talking about rogue EPA officers making stupid decisions, we're talking about DoE researchers who've dared to do their jobs while Obama was President.

We seem to be on a different page here. I was addressing something completely different with that link, to another poster, who made an assertion that "these people are trying to make the US environment healthier and safer."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Ok, then be specific. If not posters here, who are you talking about?

Who has the government fired?

It's late for me, so "hunting down" would be more precise. The terminology as used by the OP.

But the current government has engaged in the "hunting down" and silencing of global warming critics.

http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Letters/20160526_ClimateChangeLetter.pdf

Who are you talking about, specifically?

Please, tell me who has the government "hunted down"?

Don't post hysterical political grandstanding and fearmongering, I'm asking for examples of it actually occurring.

Sigh.

No so much direct action, as consideration to do same.

So the government didn't actually "hunt" anyone down, or "silence" anyone.

I'm glad that we can finally agree on this.

 

[Rustic]

Trump's White House will be a haven for McCarthyism, cronyism, nepotism, and capitalism. He has drained the swamp and brought them into the White House.

Washington Redskins, draining the swamp includes getting rid of all the **** ups that believe in man-made global warming.
So get your shit eating head out of your ass and wise up… LOL

 

[Onyx]

I will never understand why Republicans are against having clean air and a toxic free environment. Do they not need clean air? Do they want their houses under water?

What if I recognize the problem, but do not like your solutions? I want to solve problems with the environment, but not increase the power of the state in the process.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So the government didn't actually "hunt" anyone down, or "silence" anyone.

So I found this just now. I think this qualifies as the government engaging in active discouragement of a certain type of speech, i.e. "silencing" and "hunting down".

The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/science/earth/25epa.html?hpw&pagewanted=1&_r=0
A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics

 

[theDoctorisIn]

So the government didn't actually "hunt" anyone down, or "silence" anyone.

So I found this just now. I think this qualifies as the government engaging in active discouragement of a certain type of speech, i.e. "silencing" and "hunting down".

The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/science/earth/25epa.html?hpw&pagewanted=1&_r=0
A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics

Ok, an actual example. That's a good start.

So, from the article, I'm reading about a man with no expertise in the field of climate scientist, whose contrary opinion was left out of a EPA report.

He still has a job, no one has prevented him from speaking his mind to whomever he likes, and the EPA has since posted his contrary opinion on their website.

ETA: a real story on this: Behind the Furor Over a Climate Change Skeptic

ETA, again: Nevermind, I see that you posted this link as well. Did you read it? Do you believe that this man was "hunted down" and "silenced"?

Do you think it's equivalent to firing those who worked on research that you don't like?

 

[TemplarKormac]

So the government didn't actually "hunt" anyone down, or "silence" anyone.

So I found this just now. I think this qualifies as the government engaging in active discouragement of a certain type of speech, i.e. "silencing" and "hunting down".

The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/science/earth/25epa.html?hpw&pagewanted=1&_r=0
A new low in science: Criminalizing climate change skeptics

Ok, an actual example. That's a good start.

So, from the article, I'm reading about a man with no expertise in the field of climate scientist, whose contrary opinion was left out of a EPA report.

He still has a job, no one has prevented him from speaking his mind to whomever he likes, and the EPA has since posted his contrary opinion on their website.

What about the other links?

 

[TemplarKormac]

He still has a job, no one has prevented him from speaking his mind to whomever he likes, and the EPA has since posted his contrary opinion on their website

Those are a bunch of qualifiers. He didn't have to necessarily lose his job or be prevented from speaking to anyone else, but the fact he was actively discouraged from giving his opinion on the matter says to me there was an attempt to have him silenced.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He still has a job, no one has prevented him from speaking his mind to whomever he likes, and the EPA has since posted his contrary opinion on their website

Those are a bunch of qualifiers. He didn't have to necessarily lose his job or be prevented from speaking to anyone else, but the fact he was actively discouraged from giving his opinion on the matter says to me there was an attempt to have him silenced.

I have since edited that post to add to it.

But let me address this as well - and re-frame it: This man was a single member of a large team tasked to create a report in a very short time frame, and wrote an opinion that was self-admittedly based on "rushed and at times shoddy scholarship", in a field that he had no expertise in or had ever worked in, and contrary to everyone else on the team.

Should the administrator in charge of putting the report together been obligated to include his outlying and un-informed opinion in the final report?

 

[owebo]

This has all the makings of “an illegal modern-day political witch hunt.”

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has asked the Department of Energy to compile a list of all the employees and contractors who worked on a number of different initiatives related to climate change, sparking fears of witch hunts and drawing parallels to McCarthyism.

The request, a copy of which was first obtained by Bloomberg, specifically seeks the names of those who attended climate change meetings at the United Nations in the past five years and the names of Obama administration staffers who helped set a metric for calculating the social cost of carbon.

Unnamed employees at the DOE told The Washington Post that it seemed as if the Trump transition team was intentionally singling out individuals.

“It’s certainly alarming that they would be targeting specific employees in this way,” Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists told Bloomberg. “Scientists are looking at this with some suspicion, because many of the people who have been chomping at the bit to dismantle federal climate change science programs are now deeply embedded in the transition.”

Neither the Trump team nor the DOE has commented publicly on the questionnaire. Several politicians have voiced their alarm, however.

More: Trump Team Hunts For Names Of Those Involved With Obama’s Climate Change Plan

This is only the beginning. We haven't seen anything yet.

McCarthyism - Wikipedia

Elections have consequences......

 

[emilynghiem]

Who "silenced" you?

You seem to be posting just fine.

That's not what I meant.

Surely you know what McCarthyism is, right? It's a tool frequented by people in the climate discussion to silence or discredit others.

I do know what McCarthyism is - but I'm not sure that you quite understand it.

How have "people" used "McCarthyism" to silence anyone in the climate disscussion?

Again, I see hundreds, if not thousands of posts on this board discussing climate change. Is there a Congressional subcommittee or other government agency investigating these posters that I'm not aware of?

I think the general issue is about DEMONIZING to DISCREDIT anyone who questions validity of global warming arguments.

I d say the equal and opposite reaction is equally wrong if it seeks to shut down or punish people for speaking their opinions and beliefs.

If it isn't fair for global warming advocates to deny and undercut opposing arguments, it isn't fair to undercut and target them either!

We're not talking about "fairness", or "undercutting opposing arguments". We're talking about direct government retaliating against people for arguing a position.

Yes I get it theDoctorisIn
Much like the
* penalties enforced under ACA to FINE people who believe in free market health care and free choice how to pay and provide for others
* fines, forced court orders and other punishments or penalties for people who don't believe in gay marriage (or that LGBT orientation is natural and cannot be changed as a choice of behavior) and govt should not be abused to endorse or impose such beliefs

Yes Doc
I get that both sides complain when the other tries to use govt to go TOO far and start punishing ppl for lobbying and defending their beliefs.

So what are we going to do about this?

Doc, I have suggested a public conference addressing Political Beliefs so we recognize these, and quit trying to discriminate punish exclude harass or bully people for having conflicting beliefs on both sides!

Wouldn't that open approach to AOL similar situations in general solve multiple problems at the same time? On both sides of the fence taking turns doing this to each other?

Not just on global warming.
Not just on gay marriage and LGBT beliefs and policy.
Not just on right to life and right to health care.
But any similar situation where both sides argue they are being attacked or punished or denied protection by govt because of the bias established the other way that is faith based, not proven or disproven by science yet, and therefore not for govt to take sides on

 

[emilynghiem]

This has all the makings of “an illegal modern-day political witch hunt.”

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has asked the Department of Energy to compile a list of all the employees and contractors who worked on a number of different initiatives related to climate change, sparking fears of witch hunts and drawing parallels to McCarthyism.

The request, a copy of which was first obtained by Bloomberg, specifically seeks the names of those who attended climate change meetings at the United Nations in the past five years and the names of Obama administration staffers who helped set a metric for calculating the social cost of carbon.

Unnamed employees at the DOE told The Washington Post that it seemed as if the Trump transition team was intentionally singling out individuals.

“It’s certainly alarming that they would be targeting specific employees in this way,” Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists told Bloomberg. “Scientists are looking at this with some suspicion, because many of the people who have been chomping at the bit to dismantle federal climate change science programs are now deeply embedded in the transition.”

Neither the Trump team nor the DOE has commented publicly on the questionnaire. Several politicians have voiced their alarm, however.

More: Trump Team Hunts For Names Of Those Involved With Obama’s Climate Change Plan

This is only the beginning. We haven't seen anything yet.

McCarthyism - Wikipedia

Elections have consequences......

Dear owebo
Elections don't give people any right to abuse govt to violate Constitutional equal protections of law.
In fact, quite the opposite, the more people who take a public oath to defend the Constitution the easier it should be to unite and agree to enforce it.

Obama refused to include arguments against ACA mandates as unconstitutional but insisted on enforcing the law as is which Penalized citizens with fines for noncompliance due to incompatible beliefs that were discriminated against and still are until those parts are corrected.

Let's see if Trump does any better or worse crossing the line into pushing political beliefs too far where it imposes on or punishes people unconstitutionally for their beliefs.

Obama did the same thing, and liberals kept justifying this as necessary and compelling because health care mandates were more important than respecting constitutional limits and protections of citizens from deprivation of liberty and free choice and from discrimination by creed.

 

[owebo]

This has all the makings of “an illegal modern-day political witch hunt.”

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has asked the Department of Energy to compile a list of all the employees and contractors who worked on a number of different initiatives related to climate change, sparking fears of witch hunts and drawing parallels to McCarthyism.

The request, a copy of which was first obtained by Bloomberg, specifically seeks the names of those who attended climate change meetings at the United Nations in the past five years and the names of Obama administration staffers who helped set a metric for calculating the social cost of carbon.

Unnamed employees at the DOE told The Washington Post that it seemed as if the Trump transition team was intentionally singling out individuals.

“It’s certainly alarming that they would be targeting specific employees in this way,” Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists told Bloomberg. “Scientists are looking at this with some suspicion, because many of the people who have been chomping at the bit to dismantle federal climate change science programs are now deeply embedded in the transition.”

Neither the Trump team nor the DOE has commented publicly on the questionnaire. Several politicians have voiced their alarm, however.

More: Trump Team Hunts For Names Of Those Involved With Obama’s Climate Change Plan

This is only the beginning. We haven't seen anything yet.

McCarthyism - Wikipedia

Elections have consequences......

Dear owebo
Elections don't give people any right to abuse govt to violate Constitutional equal protections of law.
In fact, quite the opposite, the more people who take a public oath to defend the Constitution the easier it should be to unite and agree to enforce it.

Obama refused to include arguments against ACA mandates as unconstitutional but insisted on enforcing the law as is which Penalized citizens with fines for noncompliance due to incompatible beliefs that were discriminated against and still are until those parts are corrected.

Let's see if Trump does any better or worse crossing the line into pushing political beliefs too far where it imposes on or punishes people unconstitutionally for their beliefs.

Obama did the same thing, and liberals kept justifying this as necessary and compelling because health care mandates were more important than respecting constitutional limits and protections of citizens from deprivation of liberty and free choice and from discrimination by creed.

Exactly....which is why the election has such significant consequences for you liberals as we work to restore the constitution.....

 

[emilynghiem]

This has all the makings of “an illegal modern-day political witch hunt.”

President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team has asked the Department of Energy to compile a list of all the employees and contractors who worked on a number of different initiatives related to climate change, sparking fears of witch hunts and drawing parallels to McCarthyism.

The request, a copy of which was first obtained by Bloomberg, specifically seeks the names of those who attended climate change meetings at the United Nations in the past five years and the names of Obama administration staffers who helped set a metric for calculating the social cost of carbon.

Unnamed employees at the DOE told The Washington Post that it seemed as if the Trump transition team was intentionally singling out individuals.

“It’s certainly alarming that they would be targeting specific employees in this way,” Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists told Bloomberg. “Scientists are looking at this with some suspicion, because many of the people who have been chomping at the bit to dismantle federal climate change science programs are now deeply embedded in the transition.”

Neither the Trump team nor the DOE has commented publicly on the questionnaire. Several politicians have voiced their alarm, however.

More: Trump Team Hunts For Names Of Those Involved With Obama’s Climate Change Plan

This is only the beginning. We haven't seen anything yet.

McCarthyism - Wikipedia

Elections have consequences......

Dear owebo
Elections don't give people any right to abuse govt to violate Constitutional equal protections of law.
In fact, quite the opposite, the more people who take a public oath to defend the Constitution the easier it should be to unite and agree to enforce it.

Obama refused to include arguments against ACA mandates as unconstitutional but insisted on enforcing the law as is which Penalized citizens with fines for noncompliance due to incompatible beliefs that were discriminated against and still are until those parts are corrected.

Let's see if Trump does any better or worse crossing the line into pushing political beliefs too far where it imposes on or punishes people unconstitutionally for their beliefs.

Obama did the same thing, and liberals kept justifying this as necessary and compelling because health care mandates were more important than respecting constitutional limits and protections of citizens from deprivation of liberty and free choice and from discrimination by creed.

Exactly....which is why the election has such significant consequences for you liberals as we work to restore the constitution.....

Dear owebo
As a progressive Democrat myself, but a Constitutionalist first who believes in inclusion, consensus and equal representation of party and beliefs without coercion,
I voted for Trump and have consistently argued against Obama and Democrats agenda as unconstitutional.

You are preaching to the choir, or the choir director on this!

I'm one of the few Constitutionalist 's I've found within my own Democratic party arguing we need to enforce Constitutional principle 's and ethics FIRST before party beliefs that should be respected equally as other political or religious beliefs and remain a free choice.

I am calling for fellow Democrats to organize statewide and nationally to set up and manage our own system of health care through prison reform by converting facilities into medical and training programs, cutting costs of govt abuse and waste, and redirecting existing taxpaid resources to fund development of universal care and sustainable education and microlending programs to replace welfare and other contested policies.

I believe Trump and his approach as an individual exercising free speech, for good or for bad, is still easier to check by the Constitution than the collusion through law media party and govt that Democrats like Obama and Clinton kept using that I argue was unconstitutional imposition of political beliefs and conspiracy to violate equal rights of others by penalizing people of opposing beliefs.

I believe Democrats OWE restitution for these abuse of collective power and govt, and that Obama Pelosi Roberts and Congress members voting Yes to approve ACA mandates and payouts to corporate insurance owe those trillions in tax dollars back to (a) constituents who were promised single payer (b) taxpayers who believe in free market choices but were penalized with fines or restrictions depriving us of income and liberty without due process

I have asked for a lawsuit holding Democrats responsible for the costs of passing and enforcing an unconstitutional bill that cut deals for corporate insurance without consent or representation of taxpayers.

Do you think we can get a consensus now, that the Democrats should set this up through the party as a single payer option for those who believe in right to health care and universal coverage? I believe this can be achieved by reforming prisons and repurposing those resolves to focus on cost effective medical and mental health treatment and prevention.

Since Democrats were finally met with a resounding NO to liberal agenda pushed through media and govt, I believe now is the time to push and hold Democrats to take full financial and legal responsibility for the party platform that was otherwise injected unconstitutionally through govt instead of developing and managing these programs as an equal and free choice to taxpayers to invest and participate in voluntarily as I believe is legally necessary to protect equal rights interests and beliefs without further imposition violation or discrimination.

Thank you owebo
I'm with you, but have yet to see if other Democrats are with me on this!!!