Donald J Trump sees Climate change as a Chinese hoax

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

Stop it. We are not living in an "Ice Age". If that was the case, glaciers would not be melting so quickly, the Arctic ice would not be melting, there would be fewer sever  storm events, and the average yearly temperature would not be increasing.

True but despite the tame scientists, no one yet can prove it was caused by excess carbon let alone if it was caused by humans.

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Assuming you are saying batteries are environmentally taxing? 

 

Please discuss in further detsil your claim on LEDs.

 

I have not heard any negative and use them on my vehicles, in my home, for my barns and flashlights. Its a fantastic technology.

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2010/11/light-and-human-health-led-risks-highlighted.html

 

I'm not attacking batteries. In fact I'm all for them to be used in cars, buses etc and providing electricity when it's dark.

Of course disposal needs to be sorted.

[thaibeachlovers]

16 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

You can stick your head in the sand and listen to the pundits who try to proffer the idea that global warming isn't reversible and that it's all one big hoax. But all the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

You obviously don't want to accept the mountains of scientific evidence which is freely available and easily found using Google or any other search engine and that's your prerogative.

 

But just as a matter of interest, what are you basing your own ideas on that global warming isn't taking place?

Wish you had asked me that.

G W isn't reversible without such severe consequences that the people will not accept it. So, yes it is reversible, but not politically possible.

Has anyone said that things aren't getting warmer? It is obvious that it is, in summer. Winters are just as cold- well below freezing in many countries.

What is in dispute is whether humans are responsible or if it is a result of solar activity, and rising CO2 levels are a result of rising temperatures.

OR, it could be Gaia cleansing the planet of a pest that is destroying the environment.

 

Whatever one's favourite explanation, why has no one else on here proposed population reduction as a solution? It is obvious that the more humans the more pollution of all sorts. Reduce the population and pollution will reduce as well.

[DavidVincent]

And yet he is backpedaling in his last statement

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, DavidVincent said:

And yet he is backpedaling in his last statement

In his latest speech he said he wants gas and clean coal. Hardly a backtrack.

[DavidVincent]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

In his latest speech he said he wants gas and clean coal. Hardly a backtrack.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-paris-climate-deal-change-open-mind

[Catoni]

15 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

 

Stop it. We are not living in an "Ice Age". If that was the case, glaciers would not be melting so quickly, the Arctic ice would not be melting, there would be fewer sever  storm events, and the average yearly temperature would not be increasing.

 

       But member "blazes" doesn't have to "stop it".   He's absolutely right !

                      We are indeed living in an Ice Age.   Where did you go to school ? ?   We are presently living in an Interglacial Period, between Glacial Periods, during the Current Ice Age....  also called the Quaternary Glaciation..or Pleistocene Glaciation... present Ice Age which started about 2.6 million years ago and is still going on.  As long as the planet has Ice Caps, Ice Fields, Glaciers etc.... then the planet is in an Ice Age. 

 

   Perhaps you are confusing Ice Ages and Glacial Periods.  (Many people confuse them and in their ignorance they colloquially use the term Ice Age when talking about the last Glacial Period...... so you're not alone.  Please don't feel bad.) 

 

   I really think you mean the last Glacial Period... which was c. 110,000 to 12,000 years ago...  a much colder time during this Ice Age we are in.    The Current Ice Age that began about 2.6 million years ago has been punctuated by times of colder Glacial Periods (with the great advancing mile thick ice sheets that can cover much of the continents) and warmer Interglacial Periods like we are in now. 

 

    It's a fascinating study.   You should spend some time on it..   Learning never stops... you know. 

 

    We just came out of the "L.I.A." circa 1850.....  (L.I.A. approx, 1300 - 1850)

     That was a bad cooler time of early frosts, late Springs, shorter growing seasons. . colder, longer more bitter winters, and failed harvests and famine.  We've only warmed about 0.85 degree from 1880 - 2012. (I.P.C.C. 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, page 3)  

 

Did you expect it to get even colder after coming out of the L.I.A. ? ?   if colder is better... why don't you move to the shores of the Arctic, instead of a tropical country ? ? 

   

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, DavidVincent said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/22/donald-trump-paris-climate-deal-change-open-mind

Hmmmm. I had hoped for longer till the office corrupted Trump and turned him into a standard politician. He didn't even last till he was sitting in the chair.

If even Trump is so easily corrupted I do not have much hope for the future of the human race.

Bummer.

[DavidVincent]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmm. I had hoped for longer till the office corrupted Trump and turned him into a standard politician. He didn't even last till he was sitting in the chair.

If even Trump is so easily corrupted I do not have much hope for the future of the human race.

Bummer.

He is backpedaling on numerous things: climate, torture, immigration...Not that makes me unhappy  of that, but I am quite sure he will be even more a puppet than G.W. Bush was...

So I bet soon democrats and pro Trump will side together in the streets if he continues this way..interesting times are coming

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, DavidVincent said:

He is backpedaling on numerous things: climate, torture, immigration...Not that makes me unhappy  of that, but I am quite sure he will be even more a puppet than G.W. Bush was...

So I bet soon democrats and pro Trump will side together in the streets if he continues this way..interesting times are coming

 

All I can say now is that he had better deliver the goodies or he will suffer the greatest humiliation of any president when he gets the boot in 2020.

 

Disclaimer, I still don't think Clinton was better. Even Trump at his worst will be miles better than her.

[DavidVincent]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

 

All I can say now is that he had better deliver the goodies or he will suffer the greatest humiliation of any president when he gets the boot in 2020.

 

Disclaimer, I still don't think Clinton was better. Even Trump at his worst will be miles better than her.

Most of his "goodies" are not viables : tax the China imports ? Well I am not sure the middle class will be particulary happy to pay their daily goods 40% more. Immigration Police would be so expensive and with his will to reduce the taxes I am wondering where he will find the money for that. Trying to involve his family in the political equation is also a really bad move and he better take care to not be suspected of any collusion between his positon of President and CEO or he will face a huge slap in the face...

As for the "pro life stance"..well let's say this is just plain stupid

I bet you guessed I don't like Trump at all and his agressive stance on many points. The only thing I like so far is his will to leave the Transpacific free trade market.

I think the democrats made a huge mistake by removing Sanders from the equation. For sure he was a "red coco" for most of the liberal people in USA but he had more sympathy from a large part of the democrats IMO and seemed less corrupted and warmonger than Clinton..

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, DavidVincent said:

Most of his "goodies" are not viables : tax the China imports ? Well I am not sure the middle class will be particulary happy to pay their daily goods 40% more. Immigration Police would be so expensive and with his will to reduce the taxes I am wondering where he will find the money for that. Trying to involve his family in the political equation is also a really bad move and he better take care to not be suspected of any collusion between his positon of President and CEO or he will face a huge slap in the face...

As for the "pro life stance"..well let's say this is just plain stupid

I bet you guessed I don't like Trump at all and his agressive stance on many points. The only thing I like so far is his will to leave the Transpacific free trade market.

I think the democrats made a huge mistake by removing Sanders from the equation. For sure he was a "red coco" for most of the liberal people in USA but he had more sympathy from a large part of the democrats IMO and seemed less corrupted and warmonger than Clinton..

As a socialist I would have voted for Bernie if I could have. I liked his crush the rich policy.

I would never in a zillion zillion years have voted for HRC is because she IS one of the people I wanted Bernie to crush.

That left only Trump as a viable candidate, and I liked his destroy the system call to arms against the elites.

I expected him to be corrupted on taking office, but the speed at which he is abandoning his campaign talk and embracing the elites like Romney is disconcerting, to say the least.

However, I will take my own advice and give him a chance.

For sure, if he abandons his deplorables for the bright lights of international adulation, he will never be safe in the US again.

[DavidVincent]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As a socialist I would have voted for Bernie if I could have. I liked his crush the rich policy.

I would never in a zillion zillion years have voted for HRC is because she IS one of the people I wanted Bernie to crush.

That left only Trump as a viable candidate, and I liked his destroy the system call to arms against the elites.

I expected him to be corrupted on taking office, but the speed at which he is abandoning his campaign talk and embracing the elites like Romney is disconcerting, to say the least.

However, I will take my own advice and give him a chance.

For sure, if he abandons his deplorables for the bright lights of international adulation, he will never be safe in the US again.

We seem to agree then :)

[Linzz]

Embracing Romney is strategic to keep the GOP establishment on side. He promised to govern for all Americans remember? If does not choose Romney now then he may be seen as vindictive (same as going after Hillary). Since Romney said such terrible things to Trump and if he is vindictive it could be "we really need you Mit, honest ... Nah we don't, just joking, you like my humor right? 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You fail to mention battery storage to use in conjunction with solar panels, development of which is taking place.

Some bad things are coming out about LED lighting and anyway the next generation of lighting is under development.

For family home and using round numbers.....

 

50kW for 10 h = 500kWh at maximum demand

 

assuming "12V" 100Ah batteries you would need 400 batteries

 

assuming VRLA batteries at, say, 10,000 THB each you're looking at 4M THB in batteries alone not including inverters etc.

 

As I say, best to supply the grid!

 

What's bad with LED lamps (assuming high CRI?)

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Assuming you are saying batteries are environmentally taxing? 

 

Please discuss in further detsil your claim on LEDs.

 

I have not heard any negative and use them on my vehicles, in my home, for my barns and flashlights. Its a fantastic technology.

 

The batteries are expensive, maybe 2M TBT every 5 years

 

Heavy, maybe 2 tonnes

 

Space consuming - a garage?

 

And then you have the lead!

 

Much better to continuously feed back to the grid even when house unoccupied.

 

 

Edited November 23, 2016 by Grouse

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

True but despite the tame scientists, no one yet can prove it was caused by excess carbon let alone if it was caused by humans.

 

 

Nonsense. There is a direct correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. There have been natural cycles of CO2 levels over periods of 100,000 years. Problem now is that it is rocketing off scale and is already higher than at any time I last million years. So what's causing it? More output from us? Less absorption by forests? Either way, we're to blame ?

[ClutchClark]

3 hours ago, DavidVincent said:

He is backpedaling on numerous things: climate, torture, immigration...Not that makes me unhappy  of that, but I am quite sure he will be even more a puppet than G.W. Bush was...

So I bet soon democrats and pro Trump will side together in the streets if he continues this way..interesting times are coming

 

Democrats were angry at Trump for hos promises positions on issues like "Climate, torture, and especially immigration (which they called 'hateful') so why would they still be in the streets now that he is back-pedaling on these very issues and probably more? 

 

Can I ask if you have a job? How do you Democrats find so much available time to spend in the streets? 

[ClutchClark]

3 hours ago, Catoni said:

Where did you go to school ? ?

 

3 hours ago, Catoni said:

Many people confuse them and in their ignorance they colloquially use the term Ice Age when talking about the last Glacial Period...... so you're not alone.  Please don't feel bad.) 

 

3 hours ago, Catoni said:

It's a fascinating study.   You should spend some time on it..   Learning never stops... you know. 

 

I would have found your post more useful if it had left these little snippets of condescension out of it. in the US, higher educations are not always financial possible for everyone...you would probably get your point across better if it did not come across as so intellectually elitist. 

 

 

 

 

[Si Thea01]

27 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Democrats were angry at Trump for hos promises positions on issues like "Climate, torture, and especially immigration (which they called 'hateful') so why would they still be in the streets now that he is back-pedaling on these very issues and probably more? 

 

Can I ask if you have a job? How do you Democrats find so much available time to spend in the streets? 

 

Are they professionals, you know, rent a crowd?

[ilostmypassword]

4 hours ago, Catoni said:

 

      You must be a pretty dim bulb to not see that Global Warming/Climate Change Alarmism is part of a politico-economic agenda to bring down western capitalist industrialised nations.    But as far as left and right. ? ?    I hate the far right wing extremist idiots as much as I hate the far left wing extremist idiots.  BOTH of them are dangerous to freedom and liberty.  Both of them lead to dictatorship of one form or another.          Here are some quotes for you:    

 

   Quote: "One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore...We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,"
- Ottmar Edenhofer, co-chair U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention....and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself....believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or….one invented for the purpose."
Club of Rome

"The objective, clearly enunciated by the leaders of UNCED, is to bring about a change in the present system of independent nations. The future is to be World Government with central planning by the United Nations. Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to – compliance”
Dixy Lee Ray, former liberal Democrat governor of State of Washington, U.S.

"The emerging 'environmentalization' of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government." 
Mikhail Gorbachev, former leader of U.S.S.R.

"Regionalism must precede globalism. We foresee a seamless system of governance from local communities, individual states, regional unions and up through to the United Nations itself."
UN's Commission on Global Governance

“I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

           "All the evidence I see is that the current warming of the climate is just like past warmings. In fact, it’s not as much as past warmings yet, and it probably has little to do with carbon dioxide, just like past warmings had little to do with carbon dioxide,"

Dr. Will Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University,  former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science,  member of the National Academy of Sciences, Alfred P. Sloan fellowship in 1966,  Alexander von Humboldt award in 1976, the Herbert P.Broida Prize in 1997, the Davisson-Germer prize and the Thomas Alva Edison patent award in 2000.

 

"More Future, Less Capitalism",   "Capitalism Isn't Working,  Support Socialism", "Smash Capitalism, End Colonialism",  "Capitalism Isn't Working, It's Killing the Planet"    "Capitalism is Destroying the Planet:  Fight for a Socialist Future by International Socialist Organization: SOCIALISTWORKER.ORG"      signs at a global warming/climate change conference in Oakland, California 2014

We must keep the Alarm level high. We must keep people scared that there is a big problem. The reward for solving the problem, or for there not really being a problem, is to get your funding cut, to lose political influence, and to lose tenure.

It takes a really dim bulb not to check his quotes before citing them. Especially when they sound too good to be true

1)Can't find a reliable source for the quote allegedly from Ottmar Edenhofer

2)Seems to be a conflation of several quotes put misleadingly together according to wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AClub_of_Rome

3 Will Happer: " In December 2015 Happer was targeted in a sting operation by the environmental activist group Greenpeace; posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, they asked Happer to write a report touting the benefits of rising carbon emissions. Concerned that the report might not be trusted if it was known that it was commissioned by an oil company, Happer discussed ways to obscure the funding. Happer asked that the fee be donated to the climate-change skeptic organization CO2 Coalition, who suggested he reach out to the Donors Trust, in order to keep the source of funds secret; hiding funding in this way is lawful under US law. Happer acknowledged that his report would probably not pass peer-review with a scientific journal.^[28] " Happer is not a climate scientist and never worked for Al Gore. He was  Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, but there is absolutely no proof that Gore was responsible for firing him.

more about happer: https://www.skepticalscience.com/even-princeton-makes-mistakes.html

The rest of your quotes consist merely of assertions or remarks about world government with no mention of anthropogenic climate change. Clearly, you have a pretty dim understanding of what constitutes evidence.

 

This is a genui

[Xircal]

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Wish you had asked me that.

G W isn't reversible without such severe consequences that the people will not accept it. So, yes it is reversible, but not politically possible.

Has anyone said that things aren't getting warmer? It is obvious that it is, in summer. Winters are just as cold- well below freezing in many countries.

What is in dispute is whether humans are responsible or if it is a result of solar activity, and rising CO2 levels are a result of rising temperatures.

OR, it could be Gaia cleansing the planet of a pest that is destroying the environment.

 

Whatever one's favourite explanation, why has no one else on here proposed population reduction as a solution? It is obvious that the more humans the more pollution of all sorts. Reduce the population and pollution will reduce as well.

 

Actually, one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases are cows. Yes, dear old Nellie produces around 120kg of methane gas a year when she farts and methane is significantly more potent than CO2. There are approximately 1.5 billion cows worldwide which along with other livestock accounts for 28% of total emissions: https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730

 

But rising temperatures on their own don't produce CO2. Something has to be burnt like coal or wood so Thailand and Indonesia contribute to the amount of CO2 produced when they both burn forestry to make way for new crops.

 

But rising global temperatures will cause melting of the permafrost which will release significant amounts of methane into the upper atmosphere. The UK Guardian has an informative article on the subject which should start the alarm bells ringing for anyone who still thinks that global warming is a hoax: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/13/methane-release-from-melting-permafrost-could-trigger-dangerous-global-warming

 

 

[Si Thea01]

What is this with dim bulbs.  That's what happens when you go from base load power to solar or wind.  

[ilostmypassword]

33 minutes ago, Xircal said:

 

Actually, one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gases are cows. Yes, dear old Nellie produces around 120kg of methane gas a year when she farts and methane is significantly more potent than CO2. There are approximately 1.5 billion cows worldwide which along with other livestock accounts for 28% of total emissions: https://gizmodo.com/do-cow-farts-actually-contribute-to-global-warming-1562144730

 

But rising temperatures on their own don't produce CO2. Something has to be burnt like coal or wood so Thailand and Indonesia contribute to the amount of CO2 produced when they both burn forestry to make way for new crops.

 

But rising global temperatures will cause melting of the permafrost which will release significant amounts of methane into the upper atmosphere. The UK Guardian has an informative article on the subject which should start the alarm bells ringing for anyone who still thinks that global warming is a hoax: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/13/methane-release-from-melting-permafrost-could-trigger-dangerous-global-warming

 

 

Actually, warming temperatures will cause an increase in atmospheric levels of CO2. That's because the warmer that water is, the less ability it has to hold gases. So the warmer the oceans get, the less CO2 they can hold. You can see this in an exaggerated fashion if you compare the difference between opening a warm bottle of soda water and a cold one. But the principal applies.

[Xircal]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually, warming temperatures will cause an increase in atmospheric levels of CO2. That's because the warmer that water is, the less ability it has to hold gases. So the warmer the oceans get, the less CO2 they can hold. You can see this in an exaggerated fashion if you compare the difference between opening a warm bottle of soda water and a cold one. But the principal applies.

 

OK, I'm not disputing what you're saying, but the CO2 stored in the oceans has already been produced by some other means. Rising temperatures on their own don't manufacture CO2 which is the point I was trying to make.

[boomerangutang]

 

17 hours ago, Ahab said:

Who determined what the average temperature of the planet is supposed to be? It has been warmer and colder in the past, but now we know exactly what temperature is optimum? I don't by the modeling when it does not agree with observations. Sorry, I know I am a caveman.

 

         CC only matters for humans in the context of now and near future.  It matters not when compared to earlier geologic times (past ice ages, etc).  Because our one species has so overpopulated every habitable niche, just slight temp trends can have big effects.  We're already seeing some of the effects of more profound damage from storms; The bottom bulge of Burma from Nargis, the east coast of Luzon, New Orleans from Katrina, and so on in the past few years.  Increasing desertification is just as big a problem of a different sort.   Again, because groups of people are so finely-tuned adapted to particular niches, even slight changes in temps/sea levels/deserts spreading can have profound effects.  

 

        We're talking mostly about people with no disposable income; about half the people of the world.  It's not about T.Visa members, nearly all of whom are able to pick up and move to higher ground or greener pastures if need be.   Not so for most people living in deserts or in river deltas at 1 meter above sea level.

[ClutchClark]

17 minutes ago, boomerangutang said:

 

 

         CC only matters for humans in the context of now and near future.  It matters not when compared to earlier geologic times (past ice ages, etc).  Because our one species has so overpopulated every habitable niche, just slight temp trends can have big effects.  We're already seeing some of the effects of more profound damage from storms; The bottom bulge of Burma from Nargis, the east coast of Luzon, New Orleans from Katrina, and so on in the past few years.  Increasing desertification is just as big a problem of a different sort.   Again, because groups of people are so finely-tuned adapted to particular niches, even slight changes in temps/sea levels/deserts spreading can have profound effects.  

 

        We're talking mostly about people with no disposable income; about half the people of the world.  It's not about T.Visa members, nearly all of whom are able to pick up and move to higher ground or greener pastures if need be.   Not so for most people living in deserts or in river deltas at 1 meter above sea level.

 

Adapt or Die.

 

 

[jcsmith]

On 11/21/2016 at 10:02 AM, Catoni said:

   Global Warming/Climate Change is a great tool though to use for a political agenda.. don't you think?    Great for helping to build U.N. power, get cash for your "study and research", and to get cash to fly to fancy conferences at exotic places with five star hotels, limousines and champagne and caviar banquets with the  other "concerned elites" who know better than the rest of us,  and to raise taxes.. 

 

You are completely ignoring man's influence on this. Yes the earth's climate fluctuates, and life will evolve to deal with these changes. Industrialization is creating artificial change however, which is changing things much faster than they would be naturally. This will affect mankind in a very negative way if it continues. As I mentioned on previous pages, we are making great scientific progress in this day and age and that will continue to accelerate. We can find solutions to influence the environment, but we need to make sure we don't reach a point of no return before then. 

There are ways to clean up the CO2 levels. There are ways to decrease the amount of sunlight that reaches Earth. These are things that we can either not do right now though (in the case of deflecting or shading sun rays), or are things that are expensive and slow acting (in reducing CO2 levels). And who knows what the future will bring in regards to other solutions. Those are not viable solutions at this time, but reducing our affects in the environment is.

Edited November 23, 2016 by jcsmith

[boomerangutang]

57 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

Adapt or Die.

 

           I can see both sides of the equation as it relates to humans.  Each of us has two reactions to every situation like that.  That's why it often becomes a moral dilemma, as much as anything else.  There are some people who let their compassionate side prevail, and others who let their 'adapt or die' reaction prevail.  It's such a big topic, that thick books could be written about it.    HRC and her sort of people would try to find solutions to looming problems related to GW/CC.   Trump and his fans would say, "tough it out" or "if you move to a place like Florida, don't be surprised, and certainly don't come asking for help from me, if the next hurricane wipes out your town."  "You should'a used your noggin and not moved to Florida in the first place."   .......and so on.

 

        Again, I can see both sides of it, and I'm not completely in one camp or the other.  Each situation is unique.  But generally, if there are reasonable ways to lessen extreme hardship for groups of vulnerable people, then I'm in favor.  I'm also odd, in the sense that I care as much about the survival of other species, as I do about humans surviving.   That's an alien perspective for Trumpsters, because all they seem to be concerned about is themselves, their immediate family, and perhaps others nearby who are the same ethnicity, skin color and religion.

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, boomerangutang said:

 

 There are some people who let their compassionate side prevail, and others who let their 'adapt or die' reaction prevail.  It's such a big topic, that thick books could be written about it.    HRC and her sort of people would try to find solutions to looming problems related to GW/CC.   Trump and his fans would say, "tough it out" or "if you move to a place like Florida, don't be surprised, and certainly don't come asking for help from me, if the next hurricane wipes out your town."  "You should'a used your noggin and not moved to Florida in the first place."   .......and so on.

 

        Again, I can see both sides of it, and I'm not completely in one camp or the other.  Each situation is unique.  But generally, if there are reasonable ways to lessen extreme hardship for groups of vulnerable people, then I'm in favor.  I'm also odd, in the sense that I care as much about the survival of other species, as I do about humans surviving.   That's an alien perspective for Trumpsters, because all they seem to be concerned about is themselves, their immediate family, and perhaps others nearby who are the same ethnicity, skin color and religion.

 

The fact that I do not support the agenda for CC has nothing to do with compassion. I have probably contributed more to the less fortunate in the world through my church than most of the do-gooders here. No one has come close to providing evidence that this very expensive solution they offer has any chance of solving the problem. I do not invest my money in anything that has such little proven result or chance of success. Furthermore, there are benefits to CC for my particular region of the country and the US on the whole...we are not in the same dire straits as other regions of the world. 

 

 HRC and her sort of people would try to find solutions to looming problems related to GW/CC.

 

My opinion is that HRC and her cronies would try to find a way to personally profit from a problem.

 

As I have stated on several occasions, I am not a Trump fan. I voted Republican. 

 

As for Florida, the environmentalists have been crying about salt-water intrusion and barrier island erosion for 40+ years. According to them the place should have become uninhabitable a couple decades ago and yet it continues to grow in population every year. There is a lesson here about imminent timelines.

 

I don't know how you can say what Trumpsters do and do not think about saving other species. Certainly they have a desire for self-survival...there is no living creature that does not. It is a biologic imperative. As for your final sentence. I find it incredibly naive and not well thought at all. Are you actually saying that you would place the safety of some stranger above that of your own offspring and family unit?

I am guessing that you do not have children.