• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

VanCleef

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 9, 2018
Messages
858
Reaction score
524
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Trump on climate change report: 'I don't believe it'
US President Donald Trump has cast doubt on a report by his own government warning of devastating effects from climate change.

Asked outside the White House about the findings that unchecked global warming would wreak havoc on the US economy, he said: "I don't believe it."

The report found that climate change will cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars annually and damage health.

The Trump administration has pursued a pro-fossil fuels agenda.

The world's leading scientists agree that climate change is human-induced and warn that natural fluctuations in temperature are being exacerbated by human activity.
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?
 
Last edited:
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?

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.
 
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.

Then surely can you tell me what data points are incorrect in the report.

Facts > Feelings right?
 
Then surely can you tell me what data points are incorrect in the report.

Facts > Feelings right?

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.
 
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.

What does this have to do with the specific Report Trump was discussing? That's deflection I believe.


I would like to know what in particular was incorrect about the Federal Report that made Trump think it is wrong.
 
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?

He's simultaneously trolling and throwing meat to the base. He hasn't read the report so he doesn't even know whether he believes it or not. This is the guy who has to have memos dumbed down to one or two pages loaded with charts, a guy who is proud about not reading.

The problem is, he's also signaling to the GOPers in congress that their course of action should generally align with his statement.





Honestly, this guy shares many characteristics with sociopaths. It looks to me like he doesn't merely not care about certain things. It looks like he doesn't have the capacity to understand another person caring about things.

Though, I suppose it only matters so much. Unless the Dems have a strong showing and a certain percentage of GOPers come around on it, ignoring the issue will be the course
 
~ " Let us drink a toast before we roast ...! " :beer:
 
What does this have to do with the specific Report Trump was discussing? That's deflection I believe.


I would like to know what in particular was incorrect about the Federal Report that made Trump think it is wrong.

I am not interested in closed minds.
 
I am not interested in closed minds.

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.
 
You must've read the report to have disagreed with it, hey?

No of course not, this idea that only properly shingled experts can have an understanding of the quality of the work of the experts is wrong and it is an attempt at tyranny.
 
Oh, okay, well you must not have any opinion on the validity of the report then, and your posts in this thread must be off topic I guess.

That is some very small thinking right there.

The Better People think big.

We also listen.
 
That is some very small thinking right there.

The Better People think big.

We also listen.

I'm glad that we both agree that one should probably read the report before having an opinion on its contents! And that you are critical of Trump's "close mindedness" for dismissing outright before reading the report his own administration generated.
 
No of course not, this idea that only properly shingled experts can have an understanding of the quality of the work of the experts is wrong and it is an attempt at tyranny.

A little note for "stable geniuses" or "simple-minded morons" to allay the ambiguity. From another post of mine.


"The USA follows the Know Nothing policies of old to protect Corporate polluters and the USA Energy Industries. Veritable mountains of coal BURNING, lakes of petroleum products BURNING, Mountains of biomass BURNING, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas BURNING, nearly invisible nukes BURNING, etc., all BURNING. Releasing the HEAT into the atmosphere and raising the temperature of that atmosphere slightly, possibly one tenth of a degree per decade in human terms. Add some CO2 to trap slightly excess heat preventing its' radiation into space. Melt lots of ice to induce absorption of heat into Oceans instead of reflecting the heat back into space and causing a slight increase in Ocean tremps. Find a World Energy link. Total the BTU outputs into the atmosphere of the heat produced by burning of the aforementioned fuels. All the BTUs make their way into the atmosphere. Find the weight of the atmosphere and calculate how much the thousands of quadrillions of BTUs will raise the temp of that weight of atmosphere. Voila! Since it is a simple math problem, there is no question that the temp will increase. In the past, any Party opposing this simple math would be referred to as the Know Nothing Party and their agenda ridiculed. In today's World of IMAGERY, the MSM presents the agenda, by din of huge amounts of dollars purchasing MSM space, and propagates the Know Nothing AGENDA to protect the wealth of the Big Energy POLLUTERS. In the meantime, they must move and protect their assets before legal liability stakes a claim. Like it or lump it, those are the facts."
/
 
A little note for "stable geniuses" or "simple-minded morons" to allay the ambiguity. From another post of mine.


"The USA follows the Know Nothing policies of old to protect Corporate polluters and the USA Energy Industries. Veritable mountains of coal BURNING, lakes of petroleum products BURNING, Mountains of biomass BURNING, trillions of cubic feet of natural gas BURNING, nearly invisible nukes BURNING, etc., all BURNING. Releasing the HEAT into the atmosphere and raising the temperature of that atmosphere slightly, possibly one tenth of a degree per decade in human terms. Add some CO2 to trap slightly excess heat preventing its' radiation into space. Melt lots of ice to induce absorption of heat into Oceans instead of reflecting the heat back into space and causing a slight increase in Ocean tremps. Find a World Energy link. Total the BTU outputs into the atmosphere of the heat produced by burning of the aforementioned fuels. All the BTUs make their way into the atmosphere. Find the weight of the atmosphere and calculate how much the thousands of quadrillions of BTUs will raise the temp of that weight of atmosphere. Voila! Since it is a simple math problem, there is no question that the temp will increase. In the past, any Party opposing this simple math would be referred to as the Know Nothing Party and their agenda ridiculed. In today's World of IMAGERY, the MSM presents the agenda, by din of huge amounts of dollars purchasing MSM space, and propagates the Know Nothing AGENDA to protect the wealth of the Big Energy POLLUTERS. In the meantime, they must move and protect their assets before legal liability stakes a claim. Like it or lump it, those are the facts."
/

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. 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. 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.

What they have to say today is more worth listening to than Madam Cleo used to be, but not by a lot.
 
Last edited:
No of course not, this idea that only properly shingled experts can have an understanding of the quality of the work of the experts is wrong and it is an attempt at tyranny.

No, the idea that the opinion of someone with no training or experience in a technical field has as much weight as someoneone who has training and experience is ridiculous.

“Expert” has meaning. An expert in a field, by definition is more knowledgeable about that field than a non expert. The expert’s opinion is based on study and knowledge. A non expert’s opinion can be informed if there has been some study, but without actual study of a field your opinion is pretty much random.
 
No, the idea that the opinion of someone with no training or experience in a technical field has as much weight as someoneone who has training and experience is ridiculous.

“Expert” has meaning. An expert in a field, by definition is more knowledgeable about that field than a non expert. The expert’s opinion is based on study and knowledge. A non expert’s opinion can be informed if there has been some study, but without actual study of a field your opinion is pretty much random.

That is how it was supposed to work but America is a very corrupt place now, and the Universities have failed.

And I know how often so-called experts have either lied to me, or else been completely wrong....usually after they had claimed to be sure.
 
That is how it was supposed to work but America is a very corrupt place now, and the Universities have failed.

And I know how often so-called experts have either lied to me, or else been completely wrong....usually after they had claimed to be sure.

You know when the surgeon took a piece of my daughters hamstring and replaced her torn ACL during a 2 hour outpatient procedure I also thought the "Universities had failed". :doh:
 
That is how it was supposed to work but America is a very corrupt place now, and the Universities have failed.

And I know how often so-called experts have either lied to me, or else been completely wrong....usually after they had claimed to be sure.

An expert is someone who doesn’t make simple errors but goes on to make huge mistakes. Expertise doesn’t guarantee perfection, nor honesty.

But the fact that there are dishonest people in every field does not mean that expertise has no meaning nor does it mean a non expert in a field has the ability or knowledge to judge the quality of an expert’s work.

Trump doesn’t believe his own agencies. Based on what? He has shown he doen’t even understand the difference between weather and climate.

I am not an expert in climate science. I do have some expertise in statistics, however. Is it possible that estimates of climate change and the effect of human actions are off? Of course. If the estimates are wrong, will some experts refuse to concede? Sure. But as of now, the available evidence certainly seems to point to global warming beyond what would be expected by purely natural occurrences. Now, any scientist who can prove this wrong (not just disagree, but convincingly demonstrate) will have it made.

Science is self-correcting in the long run. Hell, it took a very long time for germ theory to prevail over miasma theory.

And it is other experts who call out the fraudulent ones.
 
Is there a compelling reason to pretend that he understands the issue well enough to believe or disbelieve it?
 
An expert is someone who doesn’t make simple errors but goes on to make huge mistakes. Expertise doesn’t guarantee perfection, nor honesty.

But the fact that there are dishonest people in every field does not mean that expertise has no meaning nor does it mean a non expert in a field has the ability or knowledge to judge the quality of an expert’s work.

Trump doesn’t believe his own agencies. Based on what? He has shown he doen’t even understand the difference between weather and climate.

I am not an expert in climate science. I do have some expertise in statistics, however. Is it possible that estimates of climate change and the effect of human actions are off? Of course. If the estimates are wrong, will some experts refuse to concede? Sure. But as of now, the available evidence certainly seems to point to global warming beyond what would be expected by purely natural occurrences. Now, any scientist who can prove this wrong (not just disagree, but convincingly demonstrate) will have it made.

Science is self-correcting in the long run. Hell, it took a very long time for germ theory to prevail over miasma theory.

And it is other experts who call out the fraudulent ones.
If only that happened on a more regular basis.

But it is not just fraud in the sense of pure liars that is the problem, it is often those who claim to know for sure things that are not true.
 
Is there a compelling reason to pretend that he understands the issue well enough to believe or disbelieve it?

A serious person would define "he".

Not U I C

:sword:
 
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?

Oil company donors dark money campaigns and gullibilty.
 
Back
Top Bottom