5 janvier 2017

Une VRAIE raison de craindre Trump

 Non, Trump n'est ni un fasciste, ni un raciste, ni un misogyne, ni un homophobe et ni un agresseur.

Si les hystériques et les féministes déjantées arrêtaient de hurler de temps en temps, on pourrait se rendre compte que, pour l'instant, la seule véritable raison de craindre Trump est son mépris évident pour la science. C'est le physicien Lawrence Krauss qui l'écrit très bien dans cet article:

The first sign of Trump’s intention to spread lies about empirical reality, (...), was, of course, the appointment of Steve Bannon, the former executive chairman of the Breitbart News Network, as Trump’s “senior counselor and strategist.” This year, Breitbart hosted stories with titles such as “1001 Reasons Why Global Warming Is So Totally Over in 2016,” despite the fact that 2016 is now overwhelmingly on track to be the hottest year on record, beating 2015, which beat 2014, which beat 2013. Such stories do more than spread disinformation. Their purpose is the creation of an alternative reality—one in which scientific evidence is a sham—so that hyperbole and fearmongering can divide and conquer the public.

Bannon isn’t the only propagandist in the new Administration: Myron Ebell, who heads the transition team at the Environmental Protection Agency, is another. In the aughts, as a director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, he worked to kill a cap-and-trade bill proposed by Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman; in 2012, when the conservative American Enterprise Institute held a meeting about the economics of a possible carbon tax, he asked donors to defund it. It’s possible, of course, to oppose cap-and-trade or carbon taxes in good faith—and yet, in recent years, Ebell’s work has come to center on lies about science and scientists. Today, as the leader of the Cooler Heads Coalition, an anti-climate-science group, Ebell denies the veracity and methodology of science itself. He dismisses complex computer models that have been developed by hundreds of researchers by saying that they “don’t even pass the laugh test.” If Ebell’s methods seem similar to those used by the tobacco industry to deny the adverse health effects of smoking in the nineteen-nineties, that’s because he worked as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry.

When Ebell’s appointment was announced, Jeremy Symons, of the Environmental Defense Fund, said, “I got a sick feeling in my gut. . . . I can’t believe we got to the point when someone who is as unqualified and intellectually dishonest as Myron Ebell has been put in a position of trust for the future of the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the climate we are going to leave our kids.” Symons was right to be apprehensive: on Wednesday, word came that Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma’s attorney general, will be named the head of the E.P.A. As Jane Mayer has written, it would be hard to find a public official in the United States who is more closely tied to the oil-and-gas industry and who has been more actively opposed to the efforts of the E.P.A. to regulate the environment. In a recent piece for National Review, Pruitt denied the veracity of climate science; he has led the effort among Republican attorneys general to work directly with the fossil-fuel industry in resisting the Clean Air Act. In 2014, a Times investigation found that letters from Pruitt’s office to the E.P.A. and other government agencies had been drafted by energy lobbyists; right now, he is involved in a twenty-eight-state lawsuit against the very agency that he has been chosen to head.

It gets worse. As this piece was going to press, word came that Trump’s likely choice for Secretary of the Interior is another climate denier, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a congresswoman from Washington State. McMorris Rodgers has made false statements about the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change; if confirmed, she would be able to further distort public perceptions on this issue by controlling how the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Park Service communicate to the public about climate change. McMorris Rodgers is a long-standing opponent of regulations on emission of greenhouse gases and an ardent advocate for the exploitation of public lands for fossil-fuel production. She would now be in a position to oversee use of federal lands for coal, oil, and gas production, potentially reversing the current moratorium on federal coal leasing, as well as making decisions on offshore oil drilling. McMorris Rodgers has even voted against tax credits for production of renewable electricity. She is about as friendly to the production of fossil fuels as a legislator can be.

The unfolding disaster at the E.P.A. represents only one front in the Trump Administration’s wider war on science. If one way to undermine science is to mindlessly dispute its methods and findings, another is to deprive it of funding, which is what Bob Walker, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign on space policy, is advocating. Walker wants to defund nasa’s earth-science efforts, which he has characterized as “politically correct environmental monitoring.” As the astrophysicist Adam Frank explained recently, in the Times, nasa’s earth-monitoring programs, which incorporate at least fifteen earth-science satellites, do more than investigate climate change; they provide data relevant to agriculture, shipping, medicine, and more. In fact, they are essential for understanding and forecasting weather—which is not to be confused with climate—including extreme weather events that threaten people’s lives. Shutting nasa out of that research prevents it from anticipating and predicting events with wide-ranging consequences.

And the Trump Administration is on course to undermine science in another way: through education. Educators have various concerns about Betsy DeVos, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education—they object to her efforts to shield charter schools from government regulation, for example—but one issue stands above the rest: DeVos is a fundamentalist Christian with a long history of opposition to science. If her faith shapes her policies—and there is evidence that it will—she could shape science education decisively for the worse, by systematically depriving young people, in an era where biotechnology will play a key economic and health role worldwide, of a proper understanding of the very basis of modern biology: evolution.

(...) Along with her husband, DeVos is an active member of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, a small Protestant denomination with the stated belief that “all scientific theories be subject to Scripture.” According to the church’s official statement on science, “Humanity is created in the image of God; all theorizing that minimizes this fact and all theories of evolution that deny the creative activity of God are rejected.” DeVos attended Calvin College, which is owned and operated by the Christian Reformed Church. She majored in business administration and political science. (She does not have a degree in education.) And although she has not spoken out directly on issues such as evolution and the Big Bang, her husband advocated teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in science classes during his 2006 gubernatorial campaign. “I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design—that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory—that that theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less,” he said. Given her strong support of his campaign, and their joint investment in both conservative and religious causes, as well as her own religious background, it is reasonable to expect that her views do not significantly diverge from his. (...)

There is nothing respectable about the idea of “teaching the controversy,” as intelligent-design advocates describe it. We don’t teach modern astronomy by suggesting to students that they feel free to decide for themselves whether the sun orbits Earth or vice versa; instead, we teach them how scientists discovered the realities of our solar system, despite considerable pressure to renounce their own discoveries. Similarly, students should be encouraged to understand that evolution is not some principle laid down on high by a conclave of scientists; they should explore the various empirical tests to which it has been subjected for more than a hundred and fifty years. The purpose of education is not to validate ignorance but to overcome it. It should be easy, therefore, for Congress to make sure that DeVos isn’t planning to drive our educational system off a scientific cliff. During her confirmation hearings, DeVos should be asked whether she thinks it’s appropriate to teach intelligent design alongside evolution in biology classes, or whether young-Earth creationism should be presented alongside the reality of a 4.5-billion-year-old solar system in physics class. An answer in the affirmative to either question should disqualify her as the highest federal government official overseeing public education in this country. If Congress doesn’t exercise its obligation to insure the competence of Presidential appointees like DeVos, then voters need to hold them accountable in the next election.

Taken singly, Trump’s appointments are alarming. But taken as a whole they can be seen as part of a larger effort to undermine the institution of science, and to deprive it of its role in the public-policy debate. Just as Steve Bannon undermines the institution of a fact-based news media, so appointments like Ebell, Pruitt, McMorris Rodgers, Walker, and DeVos advance the false perception that science is just a politicized tool of “the élites.” (...) 

Science is the one domain in human life where bias and prejudice are systematically eliminated; now those very forces are set to undermine the practice of science in America. It is not only scientists who should actively fight against this dangerous trend. It is everyone who is concerned about our freedom, health, welfare, and security as a nation—and everyone who is concerned about the planetary legacy we leave for our children.

L'image ci-dessous provient d'ici:

9 commentaires:

Guillaume a dit...

En fait Trump est peut-être aussi un fasciste et, s'il n'est pas homophobe lui-même il n'a aucun scrupules à être entouré par les éléments les plus homophobes, les plus obscurantistes et les plus répressifs de la droite. Alors c'est tout comme. Son VP voulait criminaliser le mariage gai, rien que ça. Alors ses positions anti environmentales sont un aspect de son ineptitude à diriger la plus puissante démocratie au monde.

Prof Solitaire a dit...

Fasciste? Il n'a même pas encore commencé son mandat, cette inquiétude est infondée déraisonnable pour le moment.

Homophobe? Trump a brandi le drapeau arc-en-ciel en plein congrès républicain et dans plusieurs de ses discours. Cette accusation est contraire à la réalité. C'est lui le président, pas Pence.

Guillaume a dit...

C'est Pence qu'il a choisi comme VP. Et c'est Pence qui connait la machine, pas Trump, lequel est deja profondement indifferent aux responsabilites du pouvoir. Et qu'il brandisse les drapeaux qu'il veut: le programme du GOP EST homophobe depuis longtemps. Quant au fascisme, son attitude envers ses detracteurs, son agressivite, son nepotisme, sa glorification de l'attitude justement et de l'energie et l'autopromotion au detriment d'idees politiques, ce sont toutes des signatures du fascisme. Il n'est pas encore au pouvoir mais il a depuis ses debuts en politique active des reflexes fascisants. Il est certainement un intimidateur et un ignare.

Guillaume a dit...

Et qu'il ait commence son mandat ou non est non sequitur. Il n'a pas encore mis en place de politiques anti-science non plus. C'est son attitude et ses positions prises avant d'exercer ses fonctions que l'on evalue pour des raisons evidentes. Un fasciste est un fasciste qu'il ait une position d'autorite ou qu'il soit chomeur.

Prof Solitaire a dit...

Tu mets de l'avant des arguments intéressants... et tu as raison de souligner que l'adjectif ne s'applique pas seulement à un dirigeant.

Mais dans le contexte d'un chef d'état, ce n'est pas un épithète à brandir à tort et à travers. Un fasciste c'est un Mussolini ou un Hitler. Un dirigeant totalitaire. Pas un Trump... du moins, comme je le disais, pas pour l'instant.

Guillaume a dit...

Et je ne le dis pas à la légère. D'ailleurs je dis que Donald Trump est peut-être fasciste car il a dans son discours et son comportement des similitudes troublantes. Et il y a quand même des degrés: je ne le compare pas à Hitler. À Mussolini absolument. Mais si tu trouves que je vais trop loin alors mettons Berlusconi avec qui il a énormément en commun. Y compris les désirs autocrates.

Prof Solitaire a dit...

Actions speak louder than words, my friend. Let's wait and see.

Guillaume a dit...

En politique, les mots sont des actions. Et les mots de Trump en disent beaucoup sur sa petitesse et son incompetence.

fylouz a dit...

"Pour The Atlantic, sa routine sur le réseau social révèle son aspect impulsif. Pas vraiment une nouvelle quand on connaît le personnage. « La plupart des humains ont besoin de sommeil, entre sept et huit heures. Très peu de gens, peut-être 1 à 3 % de la population américaine, n’ont besoin que de quelques heures. Peut-être que Trump fait partie de ceux-là. Peut-être pas. » Il présenterait en fait tous les symptômes de l’agrypnie, la pathologie de la privation de sommeil, théorisait, à ce propos, le New York Times. « Son jugement est souvent aux abonnés absents, il est presque toujours mal informé. Il a du mal à assimiler des informations simples. Il imagine des choses. Il montre un manque de concentration. Il est facilement distrait. Il est sujet à des soudains et violents accès de colère. Il crée des disputes. » Et terrifie ceux qu'il met en cause à chaque fois qu’il ouvre la bouche ou son application Twitter."


Ça me fait penser au comportement d'un certain Adolf H.