Trump's Denial of Climate Change

[swansont]

Calling him ignorant is judging.

 

And that's not denial?

 

 

Regardless, it fits the GOP pattern of making any claim they want and then proceeding as if that claim were true, just by virtue of having said it. Some people will believe it, just because it was uttered. But here, you should expect to get called out on it.

 

Now, the question is whether the pattern continues: disengage and just pop up somewhere else, making similarly unsubstantiated claims.

[John Cuthber]

Great scientific comeback.

 

Pointing out that someone is spouting evidence-free nonsense is scientific.

[waitforufo]

Folks, this topic is in the politics section. This topic is titled "Trump's Denial of Climate Change". Last I checked, the nation just elected Trump president of the United States. Trump repeatedly during his campaign dismissed climate change and climate science even calling it a hoax. Yet he was still elected president.

 

I have searched and searched for a national poll showing that climate change ranks within the top 10 concerns of the American people. I can't find one. Maybe you will have better luck. If you do, please post it. If you can't, please admit that you can't.

 

How am I doing with facts so far?

 

Without national concern, there is little political traction for climate change action. Trump can torpedo every climate change action of President Obama without a political backlash. Many in fact many will cheer. Without significant national concern within the top 10 concerns, scientific consensus can easily be politically ignored.

 

How about now? Anything I've said deviating from fact now?

 

I responded to posts about better educating people regarding climate change. Education, it was said, would increase concern regarding climate change. I pointed out that there has been plenty of education on climate change. Hell, a cow doesn't fart in a dairy without a news article discussing a dangers of climate change. Yet, climate change still does not rank in the top 10 of the people's concerns. I asked "So how do you propose to educate them? [the people]" without response. Debate, including scientific debate, will be required to increase political concern to an actionable level. Yet warming alarmist refuse. This simply makes them look like cowards hiding from the truth or arrogant jerks unconcerned about financial realities of working people. Not a good way to increase concern.

 

I have pointed out that the burden of proof needed for climate change action is high do to the extremely high costs. I have pointed out that the burden of proof needed for climate change action is high because such action will be opposed by environmentalists. Environmentalist will not sit idly by as nuke power plants and spent fuel repositories are built, acres of habitat are covered with solar panels, bird burners & choppers are constructed, dams are built, and the power grid is expanded to meet the needs of renewable energy. Climate action is political. Climate alarmists have had more than a decade and a supporting president to push climate change political action. The end result was Trump's election.

 

So are the above political facts too much for warming alarmists to bear?

 

Perhaps instead of having a tizzy fit about these political facts, you should accept the burdens of the political action you wish the nation to take.

[rangerx]

 

So are the above political facts too much for warming alarmists to bear?

 

 

 

Science is based upon fact issues.

 

Your denial of those facts and the rhetoric borne of it, is what's alarmist.

 

Where are you going to get all the free power infrastructure to replace fossil fuels? Where are you going to get all the free replacements for gas and diesel cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats, airplanes, snowmobiles, etc. How are you going to get environmentalists to agree to build more nuke plants, dams, power grids, solar farms, and windmills?

 

[Phi for All]

Calling him ignorant is judging.

 

And that's not denial?

 

It didn't seem judgey to point out that claiming An Inconvenient Truth had no impact on climate change was an ignorant statement. It's so trivially false, and if he's not dishonest then ignorance seems like the most supported explanation.

 

I'm sure I could be wrong.

[Prometheus]

I have pointed out that the burden of proof needed for climate change action is high do to the extremely high costs.

 

But you failed to address the counter point that, by your very reasoning, the burden of proof for climate change should actually be lower because there is such a significant cost to not acting.

 

These are equivalent positions and a preference for one is entirely subjective at this point. They are precisely equivalent because you would rather this a political not a scientific discussion.

 

But we can do better. You only consider one permutation to this problem, presumably because you have a preference for this one (3rd on the following list). But there are four permutations that we need consider: that we do nothing and climate science is incorrect, that we do nothing and climate science is correct, that we do something and climate science is incorrect and that we do something and climate science is correct.

 

These are very well understood general statistical permutations. If we can estimate the costs of acting on climate science (offset by any benefits) and estimate the costs of the consequences of climate science if true (offset by any benefits) and we have an estimate for the probability of each of these permutations then a very simple calculation can determine the most profitable course of action. Would you accept such an analysis?

 

 

Climate action is political.

 

Sure, but what is wrong with using science to motivate and inform a political debate where pertinent? Surely a species interested in acquiring the actual truth will have a better chance of survival. I know politics does not generally concern itself with what is true, but if we want to improve as a people maybe this would be a good place to start.

[iNow]

I have searched and searched for a national poll showing that climate change ranks within the top 10 concerns of the American people. I can't find one. Maybe you will have better luck. If you do, please post it. If you can't, please admit that you can't.

 

How am I doing with facts so far?

National polls also showed majority support of segregation and slavery before that. National polls also showed that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. National polls also showed dismissal of evolution as valid and widespread belief that cigarettes don't lead to higher cancer risk.

 

National polls aren't always reflective of what's best or true and also cannot be used when active heavily funded misinformation campaigns drown out reality and skew public discourse for decades as has happened on the topic of climate change. Sometimes, leadership is about more than blindly following public opinion.

 

Without national concern, there is little political traction for climate change action. Trump can torpedo every climate change action of President Obama without a political backlash. Many in fact many will cheer. Without significant national concern within the top 10 concerns, scientific consensus can easily be politically ignored.

 

How about now? Anything I've said deviating from fact now?

You are, unfortunately, quite correct.

 

However, let's all be clear that concern about global warming and support for action to mitigate it is at an eight year high, especially now that Obama and his team have driven unemployment down to 4.6% and helped us recover from the largest recession since the Great Depression (which was understandably a more immediate concern for most folks when polls were taken).

 

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx

A confluence of factors -- the economic downturn, the Climategate controversy and some well-publicized pushback against global warming science -- may have dampened public concern about global warming from about 2009 to 2015. However, Americans are now expressing record- or near-record-high belief that global warming is happening, as well as concern about the issue. Several years of unseasonably warm weather -- including the 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2015-2016 winters -- has potentially contributed to this shift in attitudes. If that's true, continuation of such weather patterns would likely do more than anything politicians and even climate-change scientists can to further raise public concern.

[swansont]

Folks, this topic is in the politics section.

 

waitforufo, this is a science discussion board. The BS claims in question did not hinge upon who was elected president.

 

I have searched and searched for a national poll showing that climate change ranks within the top 10 concerns of the American people. I can't find one. Maybe you will have better luck. If you do, please post it. If you can't, please admit that you can't.

 

How am I doing with facts so far?

Your claim was "Few people are concerned a about climate change", not that it was a top-10 concern. People are concerned about a lot of things in life. Money, health, relationships, etc. (You might have noticed several items ion your link were related to the economy, or otherwise to money matters. Starving today is more a concern than what happens next week) Many things are near-term, and push the longer-term further down the list. A lot of people don't save for retirement until it's looming on the horizon. That doesn't make it unimportant.

 

Without national concern, there is little political traction for climate change action. Trump can torpedo every climate change action of President Obama without a political backlash. Many in fact many will cheer. Without significant national concern within the top 10 concerns, scientific consensus can easily be politically ignored.

 

How about now? Anything I've said deviating from fact now?

It's true but irrelevant to the BS claims.

 

I responded to posts about better educating people regarding climate change. Education, it was said, would increase concern regarding climate change.

Ten Oz said science is a matter of education while pointing out that debates are lousy platforms for convincing people. That's the closest I can get to your strawman. You never showed that concern hadn't increased, anyway. You just falsely claimed that few people cared. That's wrong. Your own link showed that 49% though that climate change was important.

 

But the public doesn't need to be convinced in order for the government to act. The government often acts contrary to the wishes of the majority.

 

 

...

So, nothing on the posts that were actually being called out as BS? (complete restructuring of the economy, dramatic increase to the cost of energy, reduce or eliminate many enjoyable activities)

[Ken Fabian]

Waitforufo - it sounds like you have a combination of exaggerated economic fear of fixing the climate problem and understated economic fear of not fixing the climate problem. The studies like Stern and Garnaut lend support to the view - supported by climate science - that there is much more to fear from the latter. Like borrowing big and living high ("being Great again"), the economic benefits of avoiding a transition to low emissions come with a heavy debt that is going to be paid; I'm not sure it's anything to be proud of that most of that will be paid by others ("putting our nation (or our generations?) first"), most of whom will have gotten little or none of the benefits. That debt is going to be paid out irreplaceable natural capital - upon which essential economic activities depend - constraining future economic potential in ways that are irreversible.

Edited December 3, 2016 by Ken Fabian

[Airbrush]

It looks like Trump has never had much interest in science. Recently he modified his stance on climate change and said he is "open minded" about it. That tells me his bubble is slowly bursting. Influential people are making phone calls to Trump and informing him about the reality that exists outside his bubble of total approval for 70 years. Ever since he became wealthy he has had limited interests and science was not one of them, because he has been totally self-absorbed in being a dictator in the business world. Anyone who is interested in science, like the folks who post here, would have seen many science documentaries in their lifetime. Never have I seen a science documentary about climate change that was in denial.

 

I disagree with those who say a debate on climate change is pointless and may actually lose. When the facts come out and the facts are illustrated by effective animations, cutting-end CGI, the deniers lose. Fake science can be easily debunked, real science cannot.

Edited December 4, 2016 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

It looks like Trump has never had much interest in science. Recently he modified his stance on climate change and said he is "open minded" about it. That tells me his bubble is slowly bursting.

Nothing Trump says can be taken at face value. Nothing can be known for sure from anything Trump ever says.

 

While he may be saying he is open minded he is also saying he will offer businesses de-regulation policies in trade for them keeping workers in the U.S.. Those policies claims don't seem very climate friendly.

[Phi for All]

Nothing Trump says can be taken at face value. Nothing can be known for sure from anything Trump ever says.

 

I am beginning to get one clear signal though. What he says will be outlandish, frightening, and shocking, and what will really happen will not be that bad. BUT, we'll end up allowing things that are MUCH WORSE than anything we'd allow anyone else to do.

 

Trump can threaten to take 100% of something away that we'd never let anyone else touch more than 10% of. He shocks us with his outlandishness, and when he eventually settles on taking 30% away from us, we're so happy he didn't really take it all.

 

Four years of Tin Men swindles, coming right up!

[Ten oz]

 

I am beginning to get one clear signal though. What he says will be outlandish, frightening, and shocking, and what will really happen will not be that bad. BUT, we'll end up allowing things that are MUCH WORSE than anything we'd allow anyone else to do.

 

Trump can threaten to take 100% of something away that we'd never let anyone else touch more than 10% of. He shocks us with his outlandishness, and when he eventually settles on taking 30% away from us, we're so happy he didn't really take it all.

 

Four years of Tin Men swindles, coming right up!

Trump isn't in office yet. We simple do not know if the 100% he threatens will turn into 30%. We really don't know anything yet and that is a very difficult thing to process.

[swansont]

I disagree with those who say a debate on climate change is pointless and may actually lose. When the facts come out and the facts are illustrated by effective animations, cutting-end CGI, the deniers lose. Fake science can be easily debunked, real science cannot.

You haven't paid attention to the long-standing climate discussion, I take it. Or to Trump's campaign. It's far easier to make a false claim than it is to falsify it. (If you care about the truth; deniers don't care.)

[Phi for All]

You haven't paid attention to the long-standing climate discussion, I take it. Or to Trump's campaign. It's far easier to make a false claim than it is to falsify it. (If you care about the truth; deniers don't care.)

 

If I can express my doubts about your ideas in fewer, simpler words than than it took you to explain them, the uninformed will be convinced the doubt is valid. Simpler equals... righter in many minds.

 

I think the less educated someone is, the more convinced they are there's a simple, flick-of-the-switch solution at the heart of the universe's deepest mysteries. The more you know, the more you realize it's all immensely complex.

[Ten oz]

 

If I can express my doubts about your ideas in fewer, simpler words than than it took you to explain them, the uninformed will be convinced the doubt is valid. Simpler equals... righter in many minds.

 

I think the less educated someone is, the more convinced they are there's a simple, flick-of-the-switch solution at the heart of the universes deepest mysteries. The more you know, the more you realize it's all immensely complex.

I agree 100% with one exception of one word "I think the less honest someone is, the more convinced they are there's a simple, flick-of-the-switch solution at the heart of the universes deepest mysteries."

 

Does take a lot of education to admit to oneslef that they don't understand things. Deniers are dishonest in there claim that they have looked at the evidence and or understand what climate science says.

[Airbrush]

 

If I can express my doubts about your ideas in fewer, simpler words than than it took you to explain them, the uninformed will be convinced the doubt is valid. Simpler equals... righter in many minds.

 

Very well said, and that explains much. I was not aware of an inconclusive climate debate going on. But what can be simpler than a great animation that shows the north polar caps melting away and the dark water absorbs more heat? That is a powerful picture. Or a visual on sun rays being trapped in the atmosphere. If someone expresses doubts about the veracity of that animation, there should be a panel of REAL, widely recognized, climate experts to moderate and to pass judgment on those doubts.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Airbrush

[Delta1212]

Can you name a widely recognized climate expert?

[swansont]

 

Very well said, and that explains much. I was not aware of an inconclusive climate debate going on. But what can be simpler than a great animation that shows the north polar caps melting away and the dark water absorbs more heat? That is a powerful picture. Or a visual on sun rays being trapped in the atmosphere. If someone expresses doubts about the veracity of that animation, there should be a panel of REAL, widely recognized, climate experts to moderate and to pass judgment on those doubts.

 

 

That's not how the real world works.

 

People who don't want it to be true for whatever reason will cling to one of the several lines of argument used against it, regardless of the scientific validity of the argument. The more you argue that they are wrong, the more they are convince they're right.

[Ten oz]

 

 

That's not how the real world works.

 

People who don't want it to be true for whatever reason will cling to one of the several lines of argument used against it, regardless of the scientific validity of the argument. The more you argue that they are wrong, the more they are convince they're right.

Many people are impulsively defensive. Telling them they are wrong about anything creates an argument. Worse still is that many people know they are wrong and simply do not care. Holding public debates about whether or not up is higher that down only caters ill conveiced notions. Slave holders knew/know that slaves were/are humans capable of expiring pain, sadness, hope, and etc. They simply din't and dont care. The world is full of people who knowingly and willfully do the wrong thing.

[TheBeardedDude]

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.

 

 

I think the singular biggest threat is the GOP control of Congress. We are already seeing (over the last few years) a decrease in spending on Earth Science and NASA research, this will be yet another period of decreasing the funding further. It will be a pretty depressing few years (at least) for those of us relying on funding to get research done.

[Airbrush]

A cable news report I just saw says Ivanka Trump will meet with Al Gore today.

Can you name a widely recognized climate expert?

 

Anyone with an advanced degree in climate science, with the most peer-reviewed articles published in respected science journals.

 

If Morgan Freedman places a phone call to Donald, do you think Donald will refuse to take the call? Then Morgan will use his actor's skill in persuading Donald to think again. Many more celebrities believe in the significance of climate change than not. They will get in line placing calls to Donald to let Donald know what they think about climate change. So I think he can flip flop on this without too much trouble.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Airbrush

[waitforufo]

Here is an interesting article by Scott Adams of Dilbert cartoon fame from his blog.

 

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154082416051/the-non-expert-problem-and-climate-change-science

 

I thought it was pertinent because it mentions President-Elect Donald Trump, climate change, and the level of concern Scott Adams has for climate change. I'm sure most agree with his level of concern. It's a short read so enjoy.

 

The entire article is great but I particularly liked the conclusion.

 

 

As I said above, I accept the consensus of climate science experts when they say that climate science is real and accurate. But I do that to protect my reputation and my income. I have no way to evaluate the work of scientists.

 

If you ask me how scared I am of climate changes ruining the planet, I have to say it is near the bottom of my worries. If science is right, and the danger is real, we’ll find ways to scrub the atmosphere as needed. We always find ways to avoid slow-moving dangers. And if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts.

[Prometheus]

Slow-moving is a relative term. In geological age we are getting slammed.

[CharonY]

It is also not an issue of how fast it happens, but the momentum it has. Since CO2 is accumulating it will get harder and harder to remove sufficient amounts to make a difference. In addition, once we reach certain tipping points reversal is probably not really an option anymore.