Trump's Denial of Climate Change

[Airbrush]

How do you think this will play out over time? It seems to me that soon, if not already, Trump will come to reality about climate change. He tweeted that climate change was a hoax and when confronted with his tweet by Clinton in the debates, Trump's response was to deny he said that "No, I didn't" like a 5-year-old who was accused of a misdeed and deflects.

 

Either he was ignorant on the subject or was playing that card for the benefit of his supporters. Now when finding himself in a room with authorities on the subject it will be hard for Trump to continue denying human activity on global warming. There should be a big, definitive, televised debate on the subject, so we can get past this.

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-climate-20161127-story.html

 

"The president-elect is unabashed in his disdain for America’s global warming policy. He has placed a staunch climate-change doubter and antagonist of mainstream science in charge of reshaping — or as Trump has suggested, dismantling — the Environmental Protection Agency. He has talked frequently about reneging on the historic Paris global climate treaty the U.S. took a lead in drafting. And he has said he wants every federal green-energy program eliminated.

 

Environmentalists take little comfort in Trump’s recent comments that he accepts “there is some connectivity” between human activity and climate change and that he has an open mind about it, as what he’s said elsewhere and done so far suggests otherwise.

 

And even those comments gave scientists cause for alarm. “You can make a lot of cases for different views,” Trump told the New York Times, casting doubt on the finding by more than 90% of climate scientists that emissions are accelerating global warming. “I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know.”

 

​Yes Donald, maybe we will never "really know" so let's assume it doesn't exist for your convenience, you reality revisionist, and when it happens you will be long gone.

Edited November 27, 2016 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

The lying conspiratorial flip flopper that campaigned for POTUS is the same person that will be POTUS. The idea that Trump will change is one already disproven by time. Why would he change. Why stop something that has worked. Trump will cahnge was the immediate post primary thinking. That what worked in the primary wouldn't work in the general. Well, it did. I was guilty of thinking it wouldn't. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

 

Trump is already and will continue to appoint climate change deniers to manage environmental policy. Actions speak louder than words. Trump's actions, who he is appointing, are terrible. Trump's words, the words of a known liar, are meaningless.

[Airbrush]

Trump may not "change" but daily he is being intensively "educated" by the real experts. He successfully avoided reality for 70 years. But now his bubble is bursting as we speak. He will modify, he will flip flop, on some issues.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Airbrush

[swansont]

Trump may not "change" but daily he is being intensively "educated" by the real experts.

 

Any evidence of this?

[Airbrush]

My assumption is the office of POTUS is like a magnet to information from sources Trump was previously unfamiliar with, including security briefings. He was inhabiting his bubble of success. It will be hard for Trump to avoid this new deluge of urgent information.

Edited November 28, 2016 by Airbrush

[Delta1212]

My assumption is the office of POTUS is like a magnet to information from sources Trump was previously unfamiliar with, including security briefings. He was inhabiting his bubble of success. It will be hard for Trump to avoid this new deluge.

He has skipped all but two of the daily intelligence briefings since being elected.

 

So there's one theory out the window.

[StringJunky]

My assumption is the office of POTUS is like a magnet to information from sources Trump was previously unfamiliar with, including security briefings. He was inhabiting his bubble of success. It will be hard for Trump to avoid this new deluge.

 

He has skipped all but two of the daily intelligence briefings since being elected.

 

So there's one theory out the window.

It'sgoing to be interesting viewing to see how the reality of being POTUS affects him.

[Airbrush]

He has skipped all but two of the daily intelligence briefings since being elected.

 

So there's one theory out the window.

 

We are in uncharted waters. He could do anything, but it will be hard for him to continue to avoid reality.

[Willie71]

Trump claims climate change is a hoax while taking steps to protect his property from the effects of climate change. I think the republicans are aware of reality, excepting the true fundamentalists who think God controls the weather.

[Ten oz]

Trump claims climate change is a hoax while taking steps to protect his property from the effects of climate change. I think the republicans are aware of reality, excepting the true fundamentalists who think God controls the weather.

I agree. Climate Change denial is in itself a hoax. The real message isn't that Climate Change isn't happening but rather so what that it is happening. Money is more important to them.

[Phi for All]

I agree. Climate Change denial is in itself a hoax. The real message isn't that Climate Change isn't happening but rather so what that it is happening. Money is more important to them.

 

Most wealthy Republicans hate paying taxes, even for public programs that benefit them, like highways, ports, and the military. They don't like paying their share even for things they use a LOT, even though many poor people help pay for airports they'll never personally use.

 

So the idea of regulations that will be inevitable if climate change is acknowledged is enough to make them put multiple species in threat of extinction. They can't envision being able to profit if they listen to the smartest people on the planet. Fear drives them, imo, for many reasons.

[swansont]

My assumption is the office of POTUS is like a magnet to information from sources Trump was previously unfamiliar with, including security briefings. He was inhabiting his bubble of success. It will be hard for Trump to avoid this new deluge of urgent information.

He's not doing the security briefings, and who would be invited in to school him on warming? He thinks it's a Chinese hoax.

We are in uncharted waters. He could do anything, but it will be hard for him to continue to avoid reality.

He's been successful thus far.

[Ken Fabian]

I suspect that as President, Mr Trump can choose not to accept the advice put before him. Where I live it's a bit different but as I understand it he appoints the department heads of his choosing so those presenting unwanted advice - such as that climate change is real, serious and will increasingly have economic and global security implications - can be replaced. I'm not sure to what extent those in such positions are legally bound to present the reports and advice from their department, but there are ways and means - budgetary, administrative and legislative - to render many unwanted advisory bodies toothless. US Intelligence and Military communities may be more difficult to directly influence that way and as I understand it, they do take climate change seriously; they may prove persuasive in expressing that view in the face of reluctance of a President to accept it.

 

It does seem like elected politicians have extraordinary immunity from the kinds of legal requirements to take expert advice into consideration in their decisions. Even so I would expect a President would have the means to order backgrounding investigations or demand reports from relevant agencies about the veracity of something like climate science; the kind of widespread conspiring that the caricature version of climate as hoax would necessitate would surely be accompanied by consistent trails of evidence and whilst absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, the scale of such a conspiracy combined with the investigative capabilities available is very suggestive that such lack of evidence shows an absence of a climate science conspiracy. I'm not so sure it works the other way - as another commenter above suggests, climate science denial looks a lot more like a working conspiracy than climate science does and investigation of those links could be very revealing.

[swansont]

Elected officials get to choose what "experts" they listen to. So if it's a shill from big oil/coal, that's where the information will come from.

[CharonY]

Well Reince Priebus seems to re-affirm that the "default position" is thinking that climate change is "a bunch of bunk". So since the mainstream part of the inner circle seems to be sharing or re-affirming that view I have my doubts that it will change, regardless of whether they call it having an open mind.

 

 

Number two, as far as this issue on climate change -- the only thing he was saying after being asked a few questions about it is, look, he'll have an open mind about it but he has his default position, which most of it is a bunch of bunk, but he'll have an open mind and listen to people. I think that’s what he’s saying.

[Ken Fabian]

The Australian experience is of politicians and political organisations making in-principle statements of acceptance of climate science and the importance of emissions reduction policy whilst their actions say they don't accept it at all. In some ways hiding opposition and obstruction behind a facade of accepting and supporting climate action - given journalists and media show little interest in calling them to account - appears to allow them to neatly sidestep closer examination of where they really stand and what their energy policy goals really are. Energy supply reliability as an unassailable priority and excuse has become the preferred angle for attacking Renewable Energy and supporting fossil fuels. Policy to make energy networks RE ready, despite the near certainty that it will continue to grow rapidly with or without policy support, is not part of that agenda.

 

I'm not sure which is worse for holding back effective policy - overt or covert denial. Being misleading and deceptive may be an essential skill and requirement for political success - those who don't or won't are fighting with hands tied and are headed for defeat. Whilst I think truth should be valued I suspect that either way there will be political players who will be open about their climate science denial but still include being misleading and deceptive in their MO in order to achieve their goals. So I will not be surprised if there are some effectively meaningless concessions to climate action from a Trump administration finding outright denial isn't working for them. Meaningful ones? No. Even those who claim to support strong climate action appear to struggle with meaningful policy.

 

Whilst support for RE has, in my view, tended to be done as appeasement of (Political Environmentalist led or at least framed by media that way) community concern - it's transmutation into credible low emissions option being totally unexpected - I do wonder if rhetoric about nuclear from climate action obstructive conservatives serves as a different kind of appeasement, for those conservatives who do accept the science; even if "we could fix the problem easy if only those Environmentalists would let us" statements contain no actual commitment to either climate policy or nuclear to displace fossil fuels they probably reinforce the political divide that enables successful climate action obstruction by muting such concerns within and limiting defections of climate policy "traitors".

Edited December 2, 2016 by Ken Fabian

[Ten oz]

I'm not sure which is worse for holding back effective policy - overt or covert denial. Being misleading and deceptive may be an essential skill and requirement for political success - those who don't or won't are fighting with hands tied and are headed for defeat. Whilst I think truth should be valued I suspect that either way there will be political players who will be open about their climate science denial but still include being misleading and deceptive in their MO in order to achieve their goals. So I will not be surprised if there are some effectively meaningless concessions to climate action from a Trump administration finding outright denial isn't working for them. Meaningful ones? No. Even those who claim to support strong climate action appear to struggle with meaningful policy.

 

 

Saying all politicians lie benefits those who lie the most. While the sentiment is accepted broadly by society I do not personally believe it to be true. Politicians constantly accuse each other of misleading and being deceptive which muddies the waters for everyone. Yet most of the time when a politician fails to deliver on a propose policy it is due to opposition and not insincerity.

 

Here in the United States we have politicians who campaign on the idea that Climate Change is not an issue the gov't should spend time on. That weather is beyond human influence or control. When elected they do all they can to strip regulation and defund climate research. They behave and push the agendas they campaign on. Why anyone (not you specifically) would assume that Trump would soften his anti climate stance is beyond me. History doesn't reflect anti climate politicians doing that.

 

Trump has never held elected office before so there is not a history to review. However a look at his much publicized Carrier deal indicates that he (Trump) does appear to favor deregulation. His picks for key cabinet positions thus far are basically all climate change deniers as well. It is safe to assume at this time with the knowledge that we currently have that Trump's administration will not be good for climate science or the environment. I hope I am wrong.

[Airbrush]

[Trump's] picks for key cabinet positions thus far are basically all climate change deniers as well. It is safe to assume at this time with the knowledge that we currently have that Trump's administration will not be good for climate science or the environment. I hope I am wrong.

 

That is why there should be a push for a "big-TV-event" definitive debate on the subject, a great debate with spectacular numbers of viewers. Let Trump bring forth the experts to debunk climate change. Allow viewers to vote.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Airbrush

[Phi for All]

 

That is why there should be a push for a "big-TV-event" definitive debate on the subject, a great debate with spectacular numbers of viewers. Let Trump bring forth the experts to debunk climate change. Allow viewers to vote.

 

Definitive debates aren't what Big TV is all about these days. Easier to focus on Trump's flash-in-the-pan attention-grabbers, and that's what keeps people clicking and viewing. Climate science is hard, and hey! It's that guy from The Apprentice. He knows everything!

[StringJunky]

 

Definitive debates aren't what Big TV is all about these days. Easier to focus on Trump's flash-in-the-pan attention-grabbers, and that's what keeps people clicking and viewing. Climate science is hard, and hey! It's that guy from The Apprentice. He knows everything!

Yes, it's hard to pack climate change into a sound-bite.

[CharonY]

Also there is really hardly any room for debate. You have data on one side and disinformation on the other.

[Airbrush]

Also there is really hardly any room for debate. You have data on one side and disinformation on the other.

 

That is not a reason for not having a "big spectacular TV event debate". Trump should love that, the SPECTACULAR, one of Trump's favorite words. With some hype it could achieve tens of millions of viewers. Climate change can be broken down into understandable animations. Let's see the climate deniers animations, allow a panel of verifiable experts (only real, reputed, peer-reviewed climate scientists) be the judges.

 

Trump's denial of climate change is based on the Evangelical belief that God would not create the human-caused, climate change dilemma.

Edited December 2, 2016 by Airbrush

[Delta1212]

Also there is really hardly any room for debate. You have data on one side and disinformation on the other.

Yeah, it's just going to be a case of both sides saying "No, you're lying and using fake science. These are the real studies that show what is really happening."

 

And a televised debate simply doesn't provide the opportunity for the amount of time or depth of explanation that would be required to really allow the audience to distinguish one from the other, so the whole thing becomes he said/she said with numbers as far as the viewers are concerned.

[Phi for All]

 

That is not a reason for not having a "big spectacular TV event debate". Trump should love that, the SPECTACULAR, one of Trump's favorite words. With some hype it could achieve tens of millions of viewers. Climate change can be broken down into understandable animations. Let's see the climate deniers animations, allow a panel of verifiable experts (only real, reputed, peer-reviewed climate scientists) be the judges.

 

This is a completely horrible idea. If this were done correctly, the "debate" would take less time than a commercial segment.

 

Instead, the media would first make it seem like an even battle (which is a hideous thought), and they'd give equal time to both sides in the interest of "fairness", ignoring the fact that Trump's side represents less than 1% of the expert views. From there, with the new Facts are for Wimps attitude, it would only get worse for our chances that sanity might shine through.

[Airbrush]

If Trump's side is really supported by less than 1% of climate experts, then state that in the debate and how are Trump's non-experts going to counter argue?

 

"I may not be a climate expert, but I am a smart person and I deny climate change."

 

They cannot, they lose the debate.

....the media would first make it seem like an even battle (which is a hideous thought), and they'd give equal time to both sides in the interest of "fairness",

 

Trump has already indicated it is an "even battle". The media is generally in agreement with climate change and I think most educated people and celebrities are also. There could be a Climate Change Concert. So should we just give up and allow Trump's stance to define the USA?

Edited December 2, 2016 by Airbrush