Trump on climate change report: 'I don't believe it'

[KLATTU]

When have facts ever mattered to Trump? He's a Corporate-Statist. Everything he wants to do is to unchain his corporate buddies, it's why he's turned the EPA into the mess it is now. He won't acknowledge climate change because he doesn't care about it. He cares that he and his ilk make profit, no matter the cost.

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP blah blah blah...if only you were as critical of this garbage report...

 

[VanCleef]

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP blah blah blah...if only you were as critical of this garbage report...

I would appreciate if you would be critical of it.

What did it state that was incorrect? Be specific.

 

[Ikari]

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP blah blah blah...if only you were as critical of this garbage report...

The garbage here is just the President.

 

[Grand Mal]

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP blah blah blah...if only you were as critical of this garbage report...

Lemme guess- you agree with Trump that global warming is a hoax. Am I right? And any report from any source that says otherwise is garbage. Right?

 

[Visbek]

We for sure know that global warming is not a simple math problem because the Planet has regulation systems that are poorly understood but which change with time.

Well, that's ridiculously wrong.

The basic concept is actually fairly simple: Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere; humans are dumping massive amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere; this traps more heat, to a degree that overwhelms all natural sources of climate changes; this causes lots of problems for the Earth's environment.

Pretty much every scientist working in the field knows that a fuller explanation very quickly delves into incredibly complex topics, such as (but certainly not limited to) infrared bandwidth absorption; varying properties of GHGs based on atmospheric concentration levels; heat interchanges between oceans and the atmosphere; methods of measuring surface and atmospheric temperatures.... I could be here all day.

As to the "regulation systems?" Yeah, actually, we understand most of those systems now, and they don't change "with time" (i.e. arbitrarily). Climate scientists have a pretty good understanding of most of the feedbacks involved. There is also strong evidence that as temperatures rise, we will hit tipping points where the additional heat will start unlocking carbon in various sources, thus escalating temperature changes.

We also know that in a lot of ways, we're making extreme changes to the environment. For example, there hasn't been this much CO2 in the atmosphere in about 900,000 years. There is no Top Secret Regulation System that will sequester half of the atmospheric CO2 overnight, and has evaded the attention of every single climate scientist.

There are some major uncertainties remaining (the most critical ones being cloud formation, and what humans will do over the next 80 years), but even given that fact, we have a very good idea of the impacts of human activity on the climate, and lots of major predictions have been accurate for several decades now.

What happens with the Earth is that we push the planet and it tries to cope then almost all of the sudden everything becomes different as the Earth becomes something new.

Nope nope nope, that's total bull****.

When the climate changes, it can produce feedback effects. Sometimes the effects are negative (mitigating the change), sometimes they are positive (increasing the change). We have plenty of evidence that even a relatively minor change to the climate can kick off thousands of years of subsequent climate change -- e.g. the last Ice Age probably ended because of a fairly brief period of variation in solar radiation, which in turn started cycles of unlocking sequestered carbon/CO2 (i.e. positive feedback) that resulted in thousands of years of global warming. There is no magic which ensures that the planet remains within a specific range of temperatures.

More importantly, the climate does not magically "become something new" and suddenly start changing in wildly unpredictable or arbitrary ways. Warmer waters will always expand. Warmer ice will always result in more melting and less stable ice masses. CO2 will not magically start to cool the atmosphere when we hit 425 ppm. Chopping down trees is not going to magically produce more trees. The laws of physics are not going to magically change because the surface of our planet warmed by 3° C since 1750.

Given that the so-called experts either either dont know this or are not honest about it and given that they dont have any more idea what Earth will become after it changes than I do their yak yak yak of today is of limited value. Plus they dont even understand the basics, just a few years ago there was admission that they completely misunderstood till then how some C02 sinks work....there is a lot of this going on too.

Nope nope nope, more bull****.

There is certainly more to learn, but climate scientists have a very solid grasp on the likely outcomes of a variety of changes to the climate.

Equally important is that are very open about what they know, and don't know. E.g. the IPCC has spent years developing precise terminology when communicating with policy makers -- they even have a 7-page document on how to properly use terms that express degrees of certainty, confidence, quality of evidence, agreement, and so on. Every major conclusion listed in the IPCC assessments -- and we're talking about well over 1500 pages of reports, summarizing what we know about climate science -- includes a designation of the confidence in that conclusion, and often identifies any uncertainties and/or any major lack of agreement.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

Maybe you ought to *cough* learn the facts before hauling off. Just a thought.

 

[JMR]

It is curious that even as Trump doubts his scientists and knows more than his generals, that the US Military is developing a greater and greater presence in the Arctic, due to warming waters, and much less ice. Russia and China are already there, ready to zoom in on the considerable natural resources that are becoming available as the EARTH WARMS. He's such a dumb ass it's sad, SAD.

https://www.stripes.com/news/meltin...ry-competition-with-russia-and-china-1.557636

The mysterious operation was part of the U.S. military's gradual growth in the Arctic as it grapples with the effects of melting polar ice and Russia's and China's increasing assertiveness in the region. The slowly evolving plan has included stationing more fighter jets in Alaska, expanding partnerships with Nordic militaries, increasing cold-weather training and designing a new class of icebreaker ship for the Coast Guard that could be armed.

The vision could take greater shape by the end of the year: Both the Navy and Coast Guard are working on new Arctic strategies in light of the quickly changing circumstances senior U.S. military officials see.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Well, that's ridiculously wrong.

The basic concept is actually fairly simple: Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere; humans are dumping massive amounts of GHGs into the atmosphere; this traps more heat, to a degree that overwhelms all natural sources of climate changes; this causes lots of problems for the Earth's environment.

Pretty much every scientist working in the field knows that a fuller explanation very quickly delves into incredibly complex topics, such as (but certainly not limited to) infrared bandwidth absorption; varying properties of GHGs based on atmospheric concentration levels; heat interchanges between oceans and the atmosphere; methods of measuring surface and atmospheric temperatures.... I could be here all day.

As to the "regulation systems?" Yeah, actually, we understand most of those systems now, and they don't change "with time" (i.e. arbitrarily). Climate scientists have a pretty good understanding of most of the feedbacks involved. There is also strong evidence that as temperatures rise, we will hit tipping points where the additional heat will start unlocking carbon in various sources, thus escalating temperature changes.

We also know that in a lot of ways, we're making extreme changes to the environment. For example, there hasn't been this much CO2 in the atmosphere in about 900,000 years. There is no Top Secret Regulation System that will sequester half of the atmospheric CO2 overnight, and has evaded the attention of every single climate scientist.

There are some major uncertainties remaining (the most critical ones being cloud formation, and what humans will do over the next 80 years), but even given that fact, we have a very good idea of the impacts of human activity on the climate, and lots of major predictions have been accurate for several decades now.



Nope nope nope, that's total bull****.

When the climate changes, it can produce feedback effects. Sometimes the effects are negative (mitigating the change), sometimes they are positive (increasing the change). We have plenty of evidence that even a relatively minor change to the climate can kick off thousands of years of subsequent climate change -- e.g. the last Ice Age probably ended because of a fairly brief period of variation in solar radiation, which in turn started cycles of unlocking sequestered carbon/CO2 (i.e. positive feedback) that resulted in thousands of years of global warming. There is no magic which ensures that the planet remains within a specific range of temperatures.

More importantly, the climate does not magically "become something new" and suddenly start changing in wildly unpredictable or arbitrary ways. Warmer waters will always expand. Warmer ice will always result in more melting and less stable ice masses. CO2 will not magically start to cool the atmosphere when we hit 425 ppm. Chopping down trees is not going to magically produce more trees. The laws of physics are not going to magically change because the surface of our planet warmed by 3° C since 1750.



Nope nope nope, more bull****.

There is certainly more to learn, but climate scientists have a very solid grasp on the likely outcomes of a variety of changes to the climate.

Equally important is that are very open about what they know, and don't know. E.g. the IPCC has spent years developing precise terminology when communicating with policy makers -- they even have a 7-page document on how to properly use terms that express degrees of certainty, confidence, quality of evidence, agreement, and so on. Every major conclusion listed in the IPCC assessments -- and we're talking about well over 1500 pages of reports, summarizing what we know about climate science -- includes a designation of the confidence in that conclusion, and often identifies any uncertainties and/or any major lack of agreement.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-material/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf

Maybe you ought to *cough* learn the facts before hauling off. Just a thought.

Let's see if we can make it 20 years before the next "OMG we were completely wrong about that, this is how it actually works...WE ARE SURE THIS TIME!". We know how broken science is now and we know how hard it is to learn about complex things like this.....how many times we tend to be sure that we understand complex systems but have turned out to be wrong. We also know that as Humanity heads into our next crash that hubris is a cancer upon us as it usually is before crashes.

Maybe then I will sign on.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Projections like this are nearly useless in this society now because of both dishonesty and incompetence on the part of the so-called experts.

They tend to be imaginations more than anything else.

At their worst they are pure propaganda.

Says the AGW-denier who wouldn't know radiative forcing from radiator hose.

*chuckle*

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Let's see if we can make it 20 years before the next "OMG we were completely wrong about that, this is how it actually works...WE ARE SURE THIS TIME!". We know how broken science is now and we know how hard it is to learn about complex things like this.....how many times we tend to be sure that we understand complex systems but have turned out to be wrong. We also know that as Humanity heads into our next crash that hubris is a cancer upon us as it usually is before crashes.

Maybe then I will sign on.

"How broken science is..."

As you type on a computer...I guess it works by magic

*chuckle*

 

[Praxas]

Maybe then I will sign on.

Who the hell cares what YOU will sign on to. The world could be ALL IN FIRE and you would still be saying "Trump is so awesome". BE BETTER

 

[Hawkeye10]

Says the AGW-denier who wouldn't know radiative forcing from radiator hose.

*chuckle*

Look at all of the lies that have been told for decades about how food interacts with humans, and I am supposed to believe that in a few short years the so-called experts have functionally come to an understanding of how humans interact with the planet?

I mean that could be true, but the chances that it is true are nearly zero.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Trump on climate change report: 'I don't believe it'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46351940


Oh boy, here we go again lol. Is President Trump trolling or is he actually serious? Why do facts all of a sudden not matter? Why do popular conservatives like to say "Facts don't care about your feelings", but forget this thinking when it comes to a lot of scientific consensus?

I don't think he's trolling --I think he's just abysmally stupid. Easily the dumbest person to ever hold the office of president.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Look at all of the lies that have been told for decades about how food interacts with humans, and I am supposed to believe that in a few short years the so-called experts have functionally come to an understanding of how humans interact with the planet?

I mean that could be true, but the chances that it is true are nearly zero.

Maybe you should learn some of the relevant concepts dealing with AGW BEFORE forming an opinion on the topic? Just a thought...

 

[Praxas]

Look at all of the lies that have been told for decades about how food interacts with humans, and I am supposed to believe that in a few short years the so-called experts have functionally come to an understanding of how humans interact with the planet?

I mean that could be true, but the chances that it is true are nearly zero.

So how does "food interaction with humans" have anything to do with Climate Change? That's like saying since that since Trump lies, you won't believe the carpenter down the street. They have nothing to do with each other AND they are different scientists. BE BETTER.

 

[SCrider]

Maybe you should learn some of the relevant concepts dealing with AGW BEFORE forming an opinion on the topic? Just a thought...

Naw, the "truth teller" does need to know how anything works.....

 

[Buzz62]

You didn't read the report and you don't know why it is wrong, you just know it is wrong. Same goes for most climate studies. Same goes for most climate scientists.

That sounds close minded to me.

Global Warming Petition Project

Enjoy...

 

[The Mark]

Trump on climate change report: 'I don't believe it'

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46351940


Oh boy, here we go again lol. Is President Trump trolling or is he actually serious? Why do facts all of a sudden not matter? Why do popular conservatives like to say "Facts don't care about your feelings", but forget this thinking when it comes to a lot of scientific consensus?

Facts have never mattered.

That claim was always a lie.

Only money matters.


If it didn't, and facts did, we'd have started phasing out systems that generate climate changing substances back in the 1980s.

 

[slick]

Look at all of the lies that have been told for decades about how food interacts with humans, and I am supposed to believe that in a few short years the so-called experts have functionally come to an understanding of how humans interact with the planet?

I mean that could be true, but the chances that it is true are nearly zero.

Global warming alarmists are attacking the integrity of scientists, desperately seeking to minimize
the damage presented by a recent survey of geoscientists and engineers regarding global warming.
A recent survey of more than 1,000 geoscientists (commonly known as earth scientists)
and engineers reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that only 36 percent agree with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assertion that humans are causing a serious global warming problem. By
contrast, a majority of scientists in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of
recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Global warming alarmists, desperate to restore the shattered remains of their fictitious global warming
consensus, spent the last week in overdrive expressing outrage and attacking the scientists participating in the survey.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...larmists-attack-their-integrity/#2563328f617c

Let's give these global warming notions a well deserved rest!!!!!!!

 

[Deuce]

Fact: By 1985 there was near certainty from the so-called experts that we would be out of gas by now.

We are nowhere near.

Unspecified people believe the world is flat, therefore Trump is lying.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Global warming alarmists are attacking the integrity of scientists, desperately seeking to minimize
the damage presented by a recent survey of geoscientists and engineers regarding global warming.
A recent survey of more than 1,000 geoscientists (commonly known as earth scientists)
and engineers reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that only 36 percent agree with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assertion that humans are causing a serious global warming problem. By
contrast, a majority of scientists in the survey believe that nature is the primary cause of
recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Global warming alarmists, desperate to restore the shattered remains of their fictitious global warming
consensus, spent the last week in overdrive expressing outrage and attacking the scientists participating in the survey.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...larmists-attack-their-integrity/#2563328f617c

Let's give these global warming notions a well deserved rest!!!!!!!

It get's better....even if they are right the elite have pissed away most of their credibility in part by allowing science to become as corrupt as it is so their ability to gain a following of those who are called upon to suffer in the enacting of their proposed programs large enough to be able to do anything about it is about zero. In case no one has noticed our systems are cracking up, we are headed for a sure global depression in the relatively near term.....there is neither the unity nor the bandwidth to conduct these programs.

So all that is being accomplished is pushing fear upon populations that are already mostly terrified about the future, and are individually showing signs of massive emotional and spiritual trauma.

AKA the elite are driving the well being of society and individuals to the worse rather than towards the better, which has become the norm, because man they really suck.

 

[ipsofacto]

I don't think he's trolling --I think he's just abysmally stupid. Easily the dumbest person to ever hold the office of president.

Trump is willfully stupid.

 

[Visbek]

Let's see if we can make it 20 years before the next "OMG we were completely wrong about that, this is how it actually works...WE ARE SURE THIS TIME!"

We knew in 1998 that the climate was changing, specifically getting warmer. We knew that it was due to human activity, predominantly greenhouse gas emissions. We knew that it was going to cause a lot of the problems that we are just starting to see now. Many predictions were accurate as well. The deniers who squeal about "global cooling!" are basically full of ****.

Even 30 years ago, Hansen pretty much nailed it. Even as he knew we needed more research (which, I might add, we've conducted over the past 30 years), he was correct that global temperatures were rising; global temperatures would continue to rise; and the cause was GHGs. His computer models were pretty much spot on, too.

We know how broken science is now and we know how hard it is to learn about complex things like this.....

That "broken science" also made the computer that you're typing on right now, along with all of the equipment that you use to distribute your post. You rely on that "broken science" every time you flip a light switch, drive your car, see a doctor, buy milk at the store, glance at your cell phone, look at your DNA ancestry results online...

I.e. your blanket condemnation of science, which appears to be based on the inveterate pessimism which you liberally spray on this web forum combined with taking scientific successes for granted, is wholly unconvincing and completely ignorant of the empirical evidence collected by thousands of climate scientists and experiments.

how many times we tend to be sure that we understand complex systems but have turned out to be wrong.

How many times are we sure that we understand complex systems, and turn out to be right? (Answer: Lots.)

Scientists have it together enough to build the Large Hadron Collider, to land probes on Mars, to send a probe near the sun that can withstand 1,400ºC. We can put cancer into remission, even without fully understanding how it works. We can edit DNA. The list goes on.

As to climate change? We can build satellites that measure atmospheric temperatures, and gravity fluctuations around the globe. We have measurements of sea levels and water temperatures and ocean circulation; we have measurements of surface temperatures, precipitations rates, atmospheric water vapor, and greenhouse gas concentrations; we can track tropical storm size and intensity and impacts across the globe; we have proxy records and archaeological evidence; we have powerful computers that use sophisticated models, which are routinely verified using hindcasting and other error-checking methods. The list goes on.

More important here is that you haven't cited a single stitch of evidence to prove that the climate scientists have made any sort of fundamental error. And no, getting a few things wrong here and there does not invalidate an entire field which is backed up by an avalanche of data.

We also know that as Humanity heads into our next crash that hubris is a cancer upon us as it usually is before crashes.

:roll:

Please, spare us this nonsense. If there is any hubris here, it lies in the people who have basically no education whatsoever in climate science, who insist they know better than tens of thousands of PhD's who have years of experience in their chosen field.

 

[Suburban Jedi]

Trump is willfully stupid.

Trump is NOT the dumbest guy in the world

But Trump better hope that guy doesn't die

 

[Visbek]

A recent survey of more than 1,000 geoscientists (commonly known as earth scientists)
and engineers reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that only 36 percent agree with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assertion that humans are causing a serious global warming problem....

Seriously? That's your claim? LOL

To start with, geoscientists are not climate scientists, not even close. Guess what industry hires a lot of geoscientists? It's the fossil fuel industry. Geoscientists look for and extract oil, gas and other natural resources from the ground.

To put it mildly, geoscientists and engineers are not in a position to pass authoritative judgment on the accuracy of climate science. Heck, for most of them, their jobs depend on not caring about the climate!

In fact, that was the point of the paper. It wasn't written to criticize the consensus. It wasn't even based on a broad sample of the field -- the authors only surveyed people working for the petroleum industry in Alberta, Canada. It was written to explore the insidious nature of bias, when your job and/or industry depends on denial of scientific evidence.

By linking notions of the science or science fiction of climate change to the assessment of the adequacy of global and local policies and of potential organizational responses, we contribute to the understanding of ‘defensive institutional work’ by professionals within petroleum companies, related industries, government regulators, and their professional association. (Emphasis added)

The authors recognize the consensus among climate scientists, and how geoscientists and geoengineers were deriding expertise while their own livelihoods relied on the same levels, and methods of acquiring, expertise. I.e. they were so overwhelmed by their own biases that they essentially undercut the source of their own claims to credibility in order to deny climate change.

It turns out the authors rejected Forbes' denialist take on their work, in comments to the article which (surprise!) were subsequently purged:

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as “respondents believe …” or “scientists don’t believe …” Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except “Support Kyoto” are against regulation – the “Regulation Activists” mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that – among our respondents – more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.

Oh, and let's not forget that James Taylor is a climate science denier, who works for the Heartland Institute, has no scientific credentials whatsoever -- unless you believe that Syracuse University College of Law teaches climate science without telling anyone. Nice.

Citing manipulative, dishonest, ignorant garbage like Taylor's Forbes article is what you are reduced to, when the facts are not on your side.

 

[ipsofacto]

Trump is NOT the dumbest guy in the world

But Trump better hope that guy doesn't die

Nice. Thanks!