Trump signs order sweeping away Obama-era climate policies

[mesquite]

Finally we have a president who is not afraid to stand up to the climate change hoaxers.

[Langsuan Man]

10 minutes ago, mesquite said:

Finally we have a president who is not afraid to stand up to the climate change hoaxers.

and he probably thinks that the moon landing was a hoax, the earth is flat, and babies come from storks 

[stevenl]

23 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

and he probably thinks that the moon landing was a hoax, the earth is flat, and babies come from storks 

Its cauliflower, everybody knows that's where babies come from.

[boomerangutang]

30 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

and he probably thinks that the moon landing was a hoax, the earth is flat, and babies come from storks 

Anti-science right wingers probably think the moon landing was a hoax because it's made of cheese.  How can you land on cheese?   Oh,  .....and it's Obama's fault.

 

43 minutes ago, mesquite said:

Finally we have a president who is not afraid to stand up to the climate change hoaxers.

Yea, he can stand in central Florida while salt water slowly rises up to, and over his knees, and he would still say it's all a Chinese hoax to take American  jobs.  

 

I can picture this conversation between Trump and his beloved princess/daughter......

 

Ivanka: "Daddy, please don't mind me saying this, but nearly all climate scientists agree that the world is getting warmer, and much of it is caused by people activity.  Can't you enact some rules which will lessen carbon output?"

 

Dad:  "Ivanka sweetie.  You're so pretty and sexy.  Don't worry your platinum blond head about such things.  I'm a man and I'm older than you, so I know more about these things.  The coal and oil industries generate a lot of dividends for our portfolios and many bosses are friends of mine.  They make a lot of money and they want to make a lot more.  You just worry about getting your bracelets in fashion stores, and I'll worry about industrial things.  I'm the smart businessman, remember?   Are you ok with that?  Good.  Oh, and bring me another coffee and some of those glazed donuts with the colored spreckles.   There, that's a good daughter."

 

(when she returns with his snacks)

 

"......And the carbon thing.  Carbon is good.  Have you ever used a pencil?  That's carbon.  That large diamond on your finger, that's carbon.  Who's got a problem with carbon?"  

[mesquite]

If that conversation takes place between Jan 2025 and Jan 2033, it will be "President Ivanka"

[ilostmypassword]

51 minutes ago, mesquite said:

If that conversation takes place between Jan 2025 and Jan 2033, it will be "President Ivanka"

If by this you mean that Ivanka is more popular than her father, well, who isn't?

[mesquite]

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

If by this you mean that Ivanka is more popular than her father, well, who isn't?

I mean it is a Trump dynasty for the rest of my life.

[boomerangutang]

31 minutes ago, mesquite said:

I mean it is a Trump dynasty for the rest of my life.

Depends how sustained the ignorance of Trump voters, and how long they're able to be duped.   

 

Since lying is so effective in garnering American votes, perhaps Democrats should hone up on their lying skills.

 

For Trump and his ilk, it's not about playing the game well - it's all about winning.  For awhile, Trump was hinting that one of more of his gun-hugging redneck buddies should shoot HRC - to take her out of the campaign.  If someone had shot her dead, would Trump have secretly smiled and thought, "wow, that was an easy win." 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/29/2017 at 2:39 PM, Traveler19491 said:

 

I rest my case.

Reducing pollution is always a good thing, but it doesn't prove that the human race is in imminent danger of extermination from man made CO2 levels. 

Now if only they would ban private cars from any habitation of over 50,000 people and force the provision of affordable mass transit instead, plus require cheap intercity trains I might think all the fuss is worthwhile.

BTW, good luck on getting LOS to reduce it's pollution levels, never mind China or Indonesia or India.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/11/2017 at 2:19 PM, mesquite said:

If that conversation takes place between Jan 2025 and Jan 2033, it will be "President Ivanka"

Sounds good to me, but I won't be around to see it. About time we had someone worth looking at in the public eye.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/1/2017 at 3:11 AM, RPCVguy said:

Not all that bored, but I took advantage to witness how the majority chair and team had used the session. Both sides were well prepared to phrase questions and parse answers. It truly is an art, sadly too much on display.


 

Content deleted for brevity. Sorry, but I couldn't delete the graph as well.

 

Sorry, but having tried to read that post I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Far too long and complicated. Even the graphs are complicated. Not everyone on here was educated in science etc etc.

If you want such as I to follow your thinking you could perhaps make it shorter and simpler.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/31/2017 at 7:24 PM, Traveler19491 said:

Sorry to disabuse you of your fantasy, but the vast majority of miners will never go back to work in the mines. However, according to the linked article from Forbes (not exactly a bastion of liberal thought), the reason is not Obama's environmental regulations. As the article states, as of this time last year, 64% of the newly generated energy coming on line the previous year was developed from natural gas and renewables (100% for January, 2016), due primarily to the lower cost of extracting natural gas and the declining costs of renewables, both of which are rendering coal obsolete and non-competitive (https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/03/18/whats-killing-the-coal-industry/#5b204ddb7dd4). It's coal's inability to compete cost-wise that killed the industry, not anything Obama did.

Coal isn't just about fuel

I believe it is already used to make nylon for tooth brushes etc etc etc, and technology is coming up with new stuff all the time. Who knows, maybe they will make houses from it in a few years time.

Not to forget it is essential for steel making, and Trump wants more steel made in the US.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/11/2017 at 0:53 PM, boomerangutang said:

Australia's Great Barrier Reef has suffered widespread coral bleaching events in recent years, but never two years in a row, .....until now.   Further proof, if any were needed, of the dire consequences of a warming world.

 

npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/10/523254085/great-barrier-reef-hit-by-bleaching-for-the-second-year-in-a-row

Again, no one is denying that climate change is happening, but where is the proof that it is caused by man, or that if it is, that it can be changed in time to prevent the extermination of mankind?

[stevenl]

Content deleted for brevity. Sorry, but I couldn't delete the graph as well.
 
Sorry, but having tried to read that post I have no idea of what you are trying to say. Far too long and complicated. Even the graphs are complicated. Not everyone on here was educated in science etc etc.
If you want such as I to follow your thinking you could perhaps make it shorter and simpler.

That is the problem. Science is complicated, and people not understanding it are still denying it.

sent using Tapatalk

[thaibeachlovers]

Just now, stevenl said:

That is the problem. Science is complicated, and people not understanding it are still denying it.

sent using Tapatalk
 

If scientists are incapable of presenting their facts in a manner that non scientists can understand, it is their fault if people don't agree with them.

BTW scientific facts aren't complicated, gravity keeps us from falling into the sky etc. It only becomes complicated when trying to make the facts fit a theory, instead of making the theory fit the facts. So far, the climate scientists have a theory that man made CO2 rise is going to kill us all very soon. Unfortunately, they can't present the theory in such a way as to convince many of us that it isn't actually a way to sell crap electric cars and increase taxes.

[stevenl]

If scientists are incapable of presenting their facts in a manner that non scientists can understand, it is their fault if people don't agree with them.
BTW scientific facts aren't complicated, gravity keeps us from falling into the sky etc. It only becomes complicated when trying to make the facts fit a theory, instead of making the theory fit the facts. So far, the climate scientists have a theory that man made CO2 rise is going to kill us all very soon. Unfortunately, they can't present the theory in such a way as to convince many of us that it isn't actually a way to sell crap electric cars and increase taxes.

Crap. It simply is complicated, and you're choosing the easy way out, blaming others for that.

sent using Tapatalk

[boomerangutang]

36 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Again, no one is denying that climate change is happening, but where is the proof that it is caused by man, or that if it is, that it can be changed in time to prevent the extermination of mankind?

                        Not all climate change is a result of peoples' dirty habits.  But a large measure is.   Each person alive today accounts for an average of 1 ton of CO2 annually.  That's over 7 billion tons each year.  

 

                      TBL, you know better, but you choose to be contrarian.   Go and speak to any person residing in far northern regions, or residing near mountain glaciers, and you'll likely get an earful about warming trends.   

 

                   However, even worse-case scenarios won't exterminate mankind.  At most severe, perhaps 84% of people will be wiped out.   People are immensely adaptable, tho not as much as cockroaches or poison oak.  Even when I hear about Nuclear Winter eradicating all mankind, I don't buy it.  There will be remnants of survivors. 

[BigKahuna]

1 hour ago, boomerangutang said:

                        Not all climate change is a result of peoples' dirty habits.  But a large measure is.   Each person alive today accounts for an average of 1 ton of CO2 annually.  That's over 7 billion tons each year.  

 

                      TBL, you know better, but you choose to be contrarian.   Go and speak to any person residing in far northern regions, or residing near mountain glaciers, and you'll likely get an earful about warming trends.   

 

                   However, even worse-case scenarios won't exterminate mankind.  At most severe, perhaps 84% of people will be wiped out.   People are immensely adaptable, tho not as much as cockroaches or poison oak.  Even when I hear about Nuclear Winter eradicating all mankind, I don't buy it.  There will be remnants of survivors. 

Ocean temps were 2 to 3 degrees warmer 10000 years ago.

 

The co2 theory fails basic tests.

[boomerangutang]

1 minute ago, BigKahuna said:

Ocean temps were 2 to 3 degrees warmer 10000 years ago.

The co2 theory fails basic tests.

Here we go again; we all know climate has changed over millenia.  The big issue now is what's happening now and in the near future.   

[BigKahuna]

Just now, boomerangutang said:

Here we go again; we all know climate has changed over millenia.  The big issue now is what's happening now and in the near future.   

Not an issue at all. 18 years of flat temps. Storm numbers down. IPCC modelling totally wrong.

 

The scam is over. Time for real issues lile north korea etc and radical muslims.

 

Worrying about plant food whilst crazies are trying to destroy the world is pointless.

[boomerangutang]

53 minutes ago, BigKahuna said:

Not an issue at all. 18 years of flat temps. Storm numbers down. IPCC modelling totally wrong.

The scam is over. Time for real issues lile north korea etc and radical muslims.

Worrying about plant food whilst crazies are trying to destroy the world is pointless.

Wrong.  Temps have been going up steadily, around the world, for 20 yrs.  New record highs are being set nearly each year.   If you don't want to acknowledge the scientific data, no one can make you do so.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Here we go again; we all know climate has changed over millenia.  The big issue now is what's happening now and in the near future.   

Actually, the climate is as it is, the problem is whether it can be modified to something the establishment considers more suitable.

Even if they could ( and they can't ) remove the necessary amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, is there any proven science that can say it would change the extreme weather patterns we are seeing now to something better, and what would be better? It's not as if extreme storms didn't exist 100s of years ago, before C C theory. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

                        Not all climate change is a result of peoples' dirty habits.  But a large measure is.   Each person alive today accounts for an average of 1 ton of CO2 annually.  That's over 7 billion tons each year.  

 

                      TBL, you know better, but you choose to be contrarian.   Go and speak to any person residing in far northern regions, or residing near mountain glaciers, and you'll likely get an earful about warming trends.   

 

                   However, even worse-case scenarios won't exterminate mankind.  At most severe, perhaps 84% of people will be wiped out.   People are immensely adaptable, tho not as much as cockroaches or poison oak.  Even when I hear about Nuclear Winter eradicating all mankind, I don't buy it.  There will be remnants of survivors. 

What I know is that there are too many people on the planet and if they don't stop breeding it won't matter if the human race dies out because of an asteroid strike, pollution or starvation. The end result will be the same.

I am a skier, so know that snow levels have been rising since the early 1970s. What I don't know is if it was caused by pollution or not, and whatever the cause I don't think it can be "fixed".

[BigKahuna]

6 hours ago, boomerangutang said:

Wrong.  Temps have been going up steadily, around the world, for 20 yrs.  New record highs are being set nearly each year.   If you don't want to acknowledge the scientific data, no one can make you do so.

Wrong. No significant warming since 1998. Satellite data shows that.

 

You have been conned.

[BigKahuna]

28 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually, the climate is as it is, the problem is whether it can be modified to something the establishment considers more suitable.

Even if they could ( and they can't ) remove the necessary amount of CO2 from the atmosphere, is there any proven science that can say it would change the extreme weather patterns we are seeing now to something better, and what would be better? It's not as if extreme storms didn't exist 100s of years ago, before C C theory. 

 

400ppm is trace levels. Water is the no 1 element.

 

Co2 scam died years ago.

[boomerangutang]

2016 Climate Trends Continue to Break Records

Two key climate change indicators -- global surface temperatures and Arctic sea ice extent -- have broken numerous records through the first half of 2016, according to NASA analyses of ground-based observations and satellite data.

Each of the first six months of 2016 set a record as the warmest respective month globally in the modern temperature record, which dates to 1880, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The six-month period from January to June was also the planet's warmest half-year on record, with an average temperature 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the late nineteenth century.

 

excerpt from; nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

 

Boomer's note:  It's no mystery why anti-science people like Trump and his fans want to cut funding from climate science, and trash data which has been tallied in past years.  There's a small group of youngsters who are working valiantly to keep climate data from being trashed.  Kudos to them.  It's also no mystery why Trumpsters are so fixated on denying what nearly all scientists agree upon: Many of Trumpsters' buddies make their money via oil and coal companies.

 

                  It's similar to people in the alcohol drinks biz consistently trying to demonize pot and continuing to criminalize the growing of hemp.  It's all about maintaining their money streams.

[BigKahuna]

Just now, boomerangutang said:

2016 Climate Trends Continue to Break Records

Two key climate change indicators -- global surface temperatures and Arctic sea ice extent -- have broken numerous records through the first half of 2016, according to NASA analyses of ground-based observations and satellite data.

Each of the first six months of 2016 set a record as the warmest respective month globally in the modern temperature record, which dates to 1880, according to scientists at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York. The six-month period from January to June was also the planet's warmest half-year on record, with an average temperature 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the late nineteenth century.

 

excerpt from; nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/climate-trends-continue-to-break-records

 

Boomer's note:  It's no mystery why anti-science people like Trump and his fans want to cut funding from climate science, and trash data which has been tallied in past years.  There's a small group of youngsters who are working valiantly to keep climate data from being trashed.  Kudos to them.  It's also no mystery why Trumpsters are so fixated on denying what nearly all scientists agree upon: Many of Trumpsters' buddies make their money via oil and coal companies.

 

                  It's similar to people in the alcohol drinks biz consistently trying to demonize pot and continuing to criminalize the growing of hemp.  It's all about maintaining their money streams.

Wrong again. All scientists?

 

Scientists around the world have slammed the IPCC for fudging data.

 

No significant warming for 18 years.

 

96% of IPCC models wrong

 

Less storms

 

Bigger crops

 

Yet sadly there are still fools buying the scam

 

 

[BigKahuna]

http://notrickszone.com/2016/10/06/only-53-of-climatologists-meteorologists-36-of-engineers-geoscientists-19-of-agronomists-are-climate-consensus-believers/#sthash.FeNEPZF0.dpbs

[BigKahuna]

0.5%

 

Funny how the left turned that into 97% but the left lives on lies and cannot handle facts.

 

 

[craigt3365]

11 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Reducing pollution is always a good thing, but it doesn't prove that the human race is in imminent danger of extermination from man made CO2 levels. 

Now if only they would ban private cars from any habitation of over 50,000 people and force the provision of affordable mass transit instead, plus require cheap intercity trains I might think all the fuss is worthwhile.

BTW, good luck on getting LOS to reduce it's pollution levels, never mind China or Indonesia or India.

I lived in Manhattan for years.  About 10 years ago, you would see days like the bad one listed above on a regular basis.  The good one was a rare day.  I lived on the 29th floor on 72nd street with a view to the Statue of Liberty.  Stunning view at times.

 

That's a troll post with that picture.  I could do the same today right here in Pattaya.  Some days are good, some are horrible.