Donald J Trump sees Climate change as a Chinese hoax

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Such an astonishing display of ignorance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/16/take-a-deep-breath-and-dont-freak-out-about-the-future-of-clean-energy-under-trump/?utm_term=.8aec4352ba2f

LOL, LOL, LOL

Did you actually understand the article? Good grief, there is more to the planet than the USA and the rich western world. Did you not read the bit about poor countries continuing to use coal?

Did you see how much it cost to build only FIVE turbines. Get real.

 

New York and California have both mandated that power companies source 50 percent of their electricity from renewables by the year 2030.

That's FOURTEEN YEARS from now. By that time there will probably be one or two BILLION more people on the planet.

 

Also, I've always been a proponent of clean energy, but I don't think it's going to change anything re G W, and that is what THIS thread is about.

[jcsmith]

@ThaiBeachLovers: To suggest that the only people who care about climate change are people in the political bubble or TVF users is off base. It's a huge issue to a lot of people. But you did hit the nail on the head in saying that many people don't care because it won't affect them... but it will affect their children and grandchildren, and the longer we wait the harder it will become to stave off its effects. And governments can not ignore it simply because the average citizen may not want to believe in it because doing so will affect everyone worldwide. It's a very serious issue that needs serious attention.

 

It starts with reducing the emissions and moving to clean energy. Yes, alternate forms of energy are more expensive currently. But they are renewable and the cost will become more efficient once an infrastructure is in place. You can't sacrifice the future to save a few bucks in taxes.

There are solutions to help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But we can only remove so much. Basalt also seems to show promise from early studies. Home devices which store solar power are also promising (Tesla recently announced some roofing shingles which will do so and are cheaper than traditional materials). Mirrors or shades in space are another solution which has been floated by scientists.

 

Science in general though is making new discoveries faster than at any time in human history and that will continue to grow. Each breakthrough opens up new opportunities. Given time there are solutions which may be able to solve these problems. But if we ignore them it may too late by the time they are discovered. 

 

 

[kamahele]

Yes, Global Warming is real. It is a fact . Yes, this particular global warming is caused by human activity. Again this is a fact. It is not a scam. Follow the science. Follow the facts. 

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, kamahele said:

Yes, Global Warming is real. It is a fact . Yes, this particular global warming is caused by human activity. Again this is a fact. It is not a scam. Follow the science. Follow the facts. 

And your solution to the problem is?

[jcsmith]

Quote

Did you actually understand the article? Good grief, there is more to the planet than the USA and the rich western world. Did you not read the bit about poor countries continuing to use coal?

 

Which is why it is important to aid countries in the transition. It's one thing to tell countries that coal power is bad, but when they have large numbers of people without power, coal is a quick and easy solution. But it really starts with the largest offenders which is China and the U.S., as they are far and away the largest contributors to the problem. China is a huge contributor, but they are also taking steps in the right direction. The U.S. is a huge contributor when it comes to per person contributions, far higher than China or India, and moderately higher than Russia. 

[kamahele]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

And your solution to the problem is?

Oh, am I supposed to offer a solution as well as pointing out the fact that Trump's claim (and others) is a load of crap spread by those with a vested interest in fossil fuels? I think that climatologists would point out that there is no magic pill for this one. No fix. However we (humans) can attempt to reduce further harm by among other things, reducing carbon emissions by investing in lower emission cars, efficient appliances,  use more efficient light bulbs, eat less meat, weatherize your home to reduce  energy loss.... 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, jcsmith said:

@ThaiBeachLovers: To suggest that the only people who care about climate change are people in the political bubble or TVF users is off base. It's a huge issue to a lot of people. But you did hit the nail on the head in saying that many people don't care because it won't affect them... but it will affect their children and grandchildren, and the longer we wait the harder it will become to stave off its effects. And governments can not ignore it simply because the average citizen may not want to believe in it because doing so will affect everyone worldwide. It's a very serious issue that needs serious attention.

 

It starts with reducing the emissions and moving to clean energy. Yes, alternate forms of energy are more expensive currently. But they are renewable and the cost will become more efficient once an infrastructure is in place. You can't sacrifice the future to save a few bucks in taxes.

There are solutions to help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But we can only remove so much. Basalt also seems to show promise from early studies. Home devices which store solar power are also promising (Tesla recently announced some roofing shingles which will do so and are cheaper than traditional materials). Mirrors or shades in space are another solution which has been floated by scientists.

 

Science in general though is making new discoveries faster than at any time in human history and that will continue to grow. Each breakthrough opens up new opportunities. Given time there are solutions which may be able to solve these problems. But if we ignore them it may too late by the time they are discovered. 

 

 

It is exactly the situation. That people may SAY that they are concerned is just p****** in the wind if they are not going to DO anything, and I believe that none of them would actually sacrifice to achieve change.

People are too selfish to make a difference. Nobody wants to use public transport and they use a car by themselves to go to work. People actually think it's OK to live over an hour away from their work and commute in their own car every day. Huge tvs are being sold like hotcakes, everyone wants a smartphone, everyone wants a computer and wifi etc.

I dare you, tell everyone you know that they have to give up their cars, foreign travel by air, using electricity other than that produced by non carbon means, tvs, internet and computers, meat ( animals produce methane ) and all of the things that make modern life enjoyable, so that carbon can be reduced. What reaction do you think you would get?

I hope you live within walking distance from work and children's schools, and only use public transport.

 

The thing that makes me PO about this subject is that most of the things they want to do could have been done since 1967 when the first oil shock happened and they were going to do lots of things to stop using oil, but soon as oil came back they gave up all those projects, so a pox on governments that could have done something and did nothing.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, kamahele said:

Oh, am I supposed to offer a solution as well as pointing out the fact that Trump's claim (and others) is a load of crap spread by those with a vested interest in fossil fuels? I think that climatologists would point out that there is no magic pill for this one. No fix. However we (humans) can attempt to reduce further harm by among other things, reducing carbon emissions by investing in lower emission cars, efficient appliances,  use more efficient light bulbs, eat less meat, weatherize your home to reduce  energy loss.... 

Of course you have to offer a solution. I have offered many solutions.

Of course there is a simple solution- reduce the population to early 20th century levels.

 

No one is stopping everyone from doing the things you say. The fact that they don't says much to the fact they either don't know or don't care.

 

[ilostmypassword]

58 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL, LOL, LOL

Did you actually understand the article? Good grief, there is more to the planet than the USA and the rich western world. Did you not read the bit about poor countries continuing to use coal?

Did you see how much it cost to build only FIVE turbines. Get real.

 

New York and California have both mandated that power companies source 50 percent of their electricity from renewables by the year 2030.

That's FOURTEEN YEARS from now. By that time there will probably be one or two BILLION more people on the planet.

 

Also, I've always been a proponent of clean energy, but I don't think it's going to change anything re G W, and that is what THIS thread is about.

Actually, this thread is about Trump's claim that human caused climate change is a Chinese hoax.  

As for your assertion that because the change is happening much faster in developed nations than in the rest of the world...so what? Isn't that the way it always is with technological change?  You did read, didn't you, that nonrenewable sources are now cheaper than coal?  And they're getting cheaper way ahead of schedule? Why won't the rest of the world adopt them? Because they want to do it in a way that's more costly/

What makes this even sadder is that overwhelmingly it's the same people who want the west to get tougher on Islamist violence who also don't want to support renewables. And yet renewable energy sources  pose the greatest threat of all to violent Islamists. The fuel that keeps the Islamist fire burning is the revenue that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States get to promulgate their vicious version of Islam. Yet people like you, who claim that they want to get tough on it, somehow go all weak in the knees when it comes to renewable energy. If you were consistent in your principles, you should support massive subsidizing of this, and chalk it up to the cost of war. Instead, you're just fixated on the notion of getting tough on Islamist terror via violent means.  You don't have a clue about strategy.

[Catoni]

2 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Man is having an affect on it though. Yes, there has always been climate change. Yes, there will likely be more ice ages. But also yes, it will be very destructive for our society. And yes, we can do some things to help stave off or prevent it. Ignoring it will only accelerate the issues which will bring our society to disaster.

 

97% of scientists know this is legitimate. Yet somehow random posters, or right wing lobbyists try to convince us that they know more.

 

     Ah yes.....  the great old "97%" number...  555555 :)

 

      Here we see yet another Alarmist in the group being wrong.   Guess how they came up with that 97% number!  

 

  First there's the The Doran paper  that has been criticised by many sceptics in the past, where a survey of 10,256 with 3146 respondents was whittled down to 75 out of 77 “expert” ‘active climate researchers’ (ACR) to give the 97% figure, based on just two very simplistic (shallow) questions that even the majority of sceptics might agree with.

 

The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers - in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth - out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer - those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor - about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response - just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:

 

The Two Questions;

 

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

 

The questions were actually non-questions. From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming - quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate.

         When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.

 

Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen - I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800.

 

      But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.

As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/that_97_solution_again/

 

And then there is John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

 

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

 

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.

It’s time to revoke that license.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#c5acf7826d60

[thaibeachlovers]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, this thread is about Trump's claim that human caused climate change is a Chinese hoax.  

As for your assertion that because the change is happening much faster in developed nations than in the rest of the world...so what? Isn't that the way it always is with technological change?  You did read, didn't you, that nonrenewable sources are now cheaper than coal?  And they're getting cheaper way ahead of schedule? Why won't the rest of the world adopt them? Because they want to do it in a way that's more costly/

What makes this even sadder is that overwhelmingly it's the same people who want the west to get tougher on Islamist violence who also don't want to support renewables. And yet renewable energy sources  pose the greatest threat of all to violent Islamists. The fuel that keeps the Islamist fire burning is the revenue that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States get to promulgate their vicious version of Islam. Yet people like you, who claim that they want to get tough on it, somehow go all weak in the knees when it comes to renewable energy. If you were consistent in your principles, you should support massive subsidizing of this, and chalk it up to the cost of war. Instead, you're just fixated on the notion of getting tough on Islamist terror via violent means.  You don't have a clue about strategy.

That one is worth 5 LOLs.

I think you must have confused me with a different poster. I have proposed all the following on TVF previously.

I support banning oil powered cars in cities.

I support banning mass air tourism

I support banning gatherings of large numbers of people for sports events

I support nuclear power to replace fossil fuels ( plus hydro, thermal, wind, wave and solar as much as possible ).

I support videa conferencing and banning international conferences with people travelling to them

 

I may not have mentioned it before but

 

I support electric railways to replace cars for long distance travel

I support fuel cell buses

I support reducing meat production

I support solar electricity panels and water heaters on every roof

I support housing people within walking distance of their work, and the introduction of bicycle lanes in cities.

 

By all means subsidise them. I'd like free public travel in cities.

 

Most of all, I support reducing the human population of the world to avoid overexploitation of resources.

 

I'd be the first to disband the military if it were possible. Unfortunately it isn't, so I want a strong one.

 

[ClutchClark]

 

3 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Yes, there will likely be more ice ages. But also yes, it will be very destructive for our society. And yes, we can do some things to help stave off or prevent it. Ignoring it will only accelerate the issues which will bring o

 

What is the impending disaster to the US?

 

How will the continued release of Greenhouse Gasses into the atmosphere impact the US?

 

Thanks

[Si Thea01]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Such an astonishing display of ignorance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/16/take-a-deep-breath-and-dont-freak-out-about-the-future-of-clean-energy-under-trump/?utm_term=.8aec4352ba2f

 

And do you believe that the Washington Post is a credible source in order to highlight that someone else is ignorant? 

 

                                                                                     

 

[Si Thea01]

7 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

 

What is the impending disaster to the US?

 

How will the continued release of Greenhouse Gasses into the atmosphere impact the US?

 

Thanks

 

Can't wait for those to be answered.

[Mosha]

And Britain was warmer during the Roman times than it is now. There were vinyards for making wine in Britain back then. Can't have them today, because it's too cold.
 

H'mmm
http://www.englishwineproducers.co.uk/vineyards/vineyard-search/

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[kevkev1888]

 

[Redline]

Who says educated people can't be stupid.  Point illustrated

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course you have to offer a solution. I have offered many solutions.

Of course there is a simple solution- reduce the population to early 20th century levels.

 

No one is stopping everyone from doing the things you say. The fact that they don't says much to the fact they either don't know or don't care.

 

 A simple solution, which one will it be, homicide of genocide?

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, kamahele said:

Yes, Global Warming is real. It is a fact . Yes, this particular global warming is caused by human activity. Again this is a fact. It is not a scam. Follow the science. Follow the facts. 

 

Maybe if you followed the money you would have a better insight into just how the Scam works.

[dunroaming]

The point of the thread is to highlight the fact that Trump "believes" that global warming is a hoax by the Chinese.  That in itself shows just what a stupid idiot he is.  Whatever the truth is, to believe that the Chinese would try to fool the world with a hoax is staggering.

 

God help America with this moron in charge.

[stevenl]

7 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

Some people don't have kids. Others have hardly any contact with their kids. Also, there's problems that need to be sorted out now, global warming, if it is a problem, can wait a few generations before it gets really bad. Some people think so.

 

Some people sure think so, but those are the people who either have interest in denying it or don't know what they are talking about. It is a fact that the scientific community is firm in their belief that global warming is man made, and that action  needs to be taken now.

[car720]

7 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

It's all very well going on about how there are too many Chinese and Indians on planet earth.
BUT, you've got to realise that on a per person basis, Americans release far more carbon dioxide than people in China and India. Actually, on a per person basis, America produces almost twice as much carbon dioxide as China.

That's why it does actually make sense for Americans to ignore "burning coal is causing global warming".

 

 

 

With all due respect.
I had this weird idea that is was cow farts that were the principal cause of global warming.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

 

What is the impending disaster to the US?

 

How will the continued release of Greenhouse Gasses into the atmosphere impact the US?

 

Thanks

It depends on whether you consider arizona, colorado, new mexico, utah, and inland california part of the united states. If you don't, then no problem. at least as far as that area is concerned. And if you do consider them part of the USA and like really hot deserts, again, no problem.  If you like more intense hurricanes which are fueled by warmer oceans, then life on the east coast and golf of the united states will be lots of fun. Already Floridians are being hugely entertained by the increasing severity of "king tides" which are submerging their streets and portions of their homes on a regular basis thanks to rising ocean levels.

[Opl]

Trump's other wall: is his Irish resort a sign he believes in climate change?

 

Before he set sights on Mexico, Donald Trump had his eyes on a wall to protect his luxury golf resort.  – a 13ft high structure erected to protect his luxury golf resort, the Trump International Golf Links and Hotel, from increasingly volatile storms and rising sea levels.

Does it suggest he recognizes effects of global warming?

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/17/donald-trump-ireland-golf-resort-wall-climate-change

 

The United States took the first steps to protect the environment

Another reminder: China couldn’t possibly have invented global warming as a ploy against the United States because it was Donald Trump’s Republican predecessors who first initiated negotiations on the subject in the 1980s.

 

http://www.konbini.com/us/lifestyle/china-gives-donald-trump-history-lesson/

 

[Mises]

I am not convinced that the data confirms any thing other than normal climate change is actually occurring. Remember when it was called global warming? They had to drop that because the warming stopped in 1998.

Even if it is, I am not persuaded it is due to the actions of mankind.

Even if it is I am not sure that mankind can then take measures to prevent it and furthermore I am not sure the cost is worth the alleged benefit.

[nottocus]

Chinese hoax or real...I don't care what happens to the earth.

[mrfill]

9 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And Britain was warmer during the Roman times than it is now. There were vinyards for making wine in Britain back then. Can't have them today, because it's too cold.

 

 

From dear old wiki..

The UK is a premium wine-producing region, with around 500 vineyards in England and Wales covering some 4,500 acres and producing sparkling and still wines. English and Welsh wines have been winning many prestigious awards.

 

And don't confuse English wine with British wine. British wine is rubbish - just relabelled poor quality wine from anywhere you like but bottled in the UK. English wine is very different and of high quality.

[sgtsabai]

Opl, thank you, you beat me to it. Damn we have some people here that just can't/won't handle the truth and some of them show the worse of what is supposed to be human behavior, don't care about the kids, the future-damn. Must be "christians".

[boomerangutang]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

And your solution to the problem is?

 

      A poster opines: "Is the world warming- YES. Can we stop it- NO."

 

          No scientist claims there is a silver bullet which will stop GW.  It's not like a stopped drain where, if you plunge it, it all of a sudden opens.  Nearly all scientists, and nearly all thinking people (who are not involved in the fossil fuel-related  industries) know that it's a complicated issue.

 

      Rather than a flat-out solution, there are ways to lessen the speed of the warming.  That's what the Paris accords were aimed at.  It was a minor miracle that nearly all countries agreed on the gist of the issue and pledged to do what they can to slow warming.  If China wasn't so choked on its pollution, it wouldn't have agreed to anything in Paris.   With The Divider set to lead the US, it's borderline crime against humanity for him and his anti-science buddies - being so quick to trash the Paris accords.  

 

      Regarding the word 'stop.'   Can we stop drunk driving overnight?  No.   Can we lessen drunken driving harm by enacting certain targeted laws?  Yes.  Can we stop injuries in car wrecks?  No.  But we can lessen vehicle injuries by mandating seat belt laws.   You get the picture.  Re; climate:  we can affect positive changes by degrees - pun intended.

 

          One of HRC's last stump speeches was in Florida, where she and Al Gore talked only about the importance of GW and what she would do in that regard.  I particularly liked how Clinton spoke about boosting jobs in clean/renewable alternative power industries.  Meanwhile, Trump was probably sitting on his gold toilet, thinking about grabbing pussy.

 

[Skeptic7]

8 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

It isn't the fossil fuels; it is the methane from animals. If you are serious about global warming turn to vegetarianism.

While you are correct about increased methane and I agree with your sentiment, it's important to note it's BOTH...CO2 as well as the methane. Deforestation is also a BIG problem.

 

BTW...Been a vegan for nearly 27 years.