Trump's Denial of Climate Change

[iNow]

Yeah, but a cartoonist suggested otherwise. I'm really torn about who to believe.

[Delta1212]

Scott Adams is slightly bonkers in general, so...

[iNow]

To his credit, he predicted a Trump victory more than a year before it happened.

 

Here he is 6 months ago discussing Trumps use of persuasion and manipulation techniques:

 

 

That said, I'll stick with the scientists on the subject of climate change and will believe we have a solution that can actually scale with the problem once it's been invented and confirmed to be feasible.

[Delta1212]

To his credit, he predicted a Trump victory more than a year before it happened.

 

Here he is 6 months ago discussing Trumps use of persuasion and manipulation techniques:

 

https://youtu.be/iLytHh8Za9g

 

That said, I'll stick with the scientists on the subject of climate change and will believe we have a solution that can actually scale with the problem once it's been invented and confirmed to be feasible.

I know he did. I've peeked at his blog on and off over the whole campaign season.

 

He's slightly nuts.

[swansont]

"We always find ways to avoid slow-moving dangers."

 

Aye, there's the rub. The longer you wait to act, the more you need to go into "crisis mode" when you can no longer deny the problem exists. But last-ditch efforts are more expensive than treating the problem earlier. ( like chemotherapy is more radical than quitting smoking, but getting cancer is not a big concern when you're young). And you're relying on the same people you're ignoring now to come up with a new solution that will work, instead of using the solutions that are currently available. It's an ignorant and selfish attitude.

[Ten oz]

Under Obama the GOP was able to win 900 seat in state legislators.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/25/cokie-roberts/have-democrats-lost-900-seats-state-legislatures-o/

 

Starting in 2010 and then stepping up in 2013 the GOP was able to change many voting laws in 14 states. Many proven in court to target minority voters.

https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/election-2016-restrictive-voting-laws-numbers

 

The GOP obstruction of Obama's curcuit court appointments and filibustering of policy has been record shattering. No need for a link we should all be aware.

 

 

While Climate is important to me I understand that it isn't to conservatives. Trump just won running against climate. So why should I our anyone else assume he will now shift? There are no debates to win,only elections. The GOP understand this. Which is why the went into a fact free bunker in 2008 and sought to block everything of Obama's while picking up every seat they could. Nothing will happen on climate until Democrats are able to win enough seats back to be able to push policy! And talking about the Climate, thus far, hasn't been an issue that helps win elections.

 

In my opinion Democrats and progressives need to focus on actionable issues. Pick fights over things that can happen now and not get pulled in to debates about reality that lead nowhere. We need investigations in to the foriegn cyber attacks during our election, we need investigations in conflicts of interest of POTUS Elect, we need to prevent a congressional waiver for Gen. Mattis, and etc. Those are actionable today and create pressure on the New Administration today. Just sitting around hoping that Trump changes his behavior now that he has more power and influence is crazy (in my opinion).

 

If you care about climate I suggest you start look at up coming local, state, and federal elections. Worry about how to get people who will support the type of pocies you care about elected. As for Trump, we still don't know what his foriegn holdings look like. He is taking calls from foriegn governments and we don't know if he owes them money. At the moment, this moment, Trumps conflicts of interest matter more than climate. It is more pressing and should be where all democrat energy goes.

[StringJunky]

. At the moment, this moment, Trumps conflicts of interest matter more than climate. It is more pressing and should be where all democrat energy goes.

I I read yesterday - BBC site I think - that he unloaded his investment portfolio in June. He saw that one coming.

Edited December 7, 2016 by StringJunky

[swansont]

I I read yesterday - BBC site I think - that he unloaded his investment portfolio in June.

 

 

He lied about doing something similar ages ago, and lies continually (he just lied about $4B in cost overruns on a Boeing contract), so unless there are SEC documents confirming it, I assume it didn't happen.

 

While Climate is important to me I understand that it isn't to conservatives. Trump just won running against climate. So why should I our anyone else assume he will now shift? There are no debates to win,only elections. The GOP understand this.

 

The military takes it seriously. I don't understand why the dems don't hammer the repubs for being weak on defense with this. It affects navy operations and logistics. The GOP has gone so far as to tell the military specifically to not take climate change into account in their actions.

[StringJunky]

 

 

He lied about doing something similar ages ago, and lies continually (he just lied about $4B in cost overruns on a Boeing contract), so unless there are SEC documents confirming it, I assume it didn't happen.

Nothing new there then. Once a liar...

Edited December 7, 2016 by StringJunky

[Ten oz]

Nothing new there then. Once a liar...

Right, just because he says he sold doesn't mean he did. He is a liar.

 

 

He lied about doing something similar ages ago, and lies continually (he just lied about $4B in cost overruns on a Boeing contract), so unless there are SEC documents confirming it, I assume it didn't happen.

 

 

The military takes it seriously. I don't understand why the dems don't hammer the repubs for being weak on defense with this. It affects navy operations and logistics. The GOP has gone so far as to tell the military specifically to not take climate change into account in their actions.

The military does however the GOP openly mocks it and the general public doesn't care. We (USA) has a long way to go on the issue still.

 

Trump's conflicts are a matter of law and don't require public support. Catch h breaking the law and some can be done.

[Phi for All]

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

 

... or we can think about our kids, poison them a lot less, and regulate responsibly, according to what the experts have outlined. Better environment, and we avoid the hideously costly scramble to "scrub the atmosphere" that Mr Adams mentions.

 

Scrub the atmosphere? That sounds a lot like you waited until your marshmallow turned black before pulling it out of the fire.

[TheBeardedDude]

 

... or we can think about our kids, poison them a lot less, and regulate responsibly, according to what the experts have outlined. Better environment, and we avoid the hideously costly scramble to "scrub the atmosphere" that Mr Adams mentions.

 

Scrub the atmosphere? That sounds a lot like waiting until your marshmallow turns black before pulling it out of the fire.

 

 

We can also think about future generations be recognizing that fossil fuels are non-renewable resources that pollute in other ways too. It is selfish to sit back and say "let the future deal with the problems we are creating now."

 

Also, I don't know about "scrubbing the atmosphere" but it might be possible to sequester some of the anthropogenic CO2 by enhancing the carbon pump that exists in the oceans. But that should be considered a complimentary approach. Complimentary to transitioning away from fossil fuels while simultaneously reducing our emissions.

[StringJunky]

... or we can think about our kids, poison them a lot less, and regulate responsibly, according to what the experts have outlined. Better environment, and we avoid the hideously costly scramble to "scrub the atmosphere" that Mr Adams mentions.

 

Scrub the atmosphere? That sounds a lot like you waited until your marshmallow turned black before pulling it out of the fire.

James Lovelock said once that what the Earth has been doing for billions years we'll have to do ourselves eventually if we ignore the problem; regulate the atmosphere to maintain homeostasis.

[Carrock]

From Donald Trump's plan to build huge wall at Irish golf course scrapped amid concern for rare snail

Mr Trump has hinted that he does not believe in man-made climate change, tweeting that the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in 2012, but the application cited global warming and rising sea levels to justify the wall.

[DrP]

2012? We were being taught about greenhouse gasses and ozone depletion at school in the 1980s! What's he on about!?

[waitforufo]

Yeah, but a cartoonist suggested otherwise. I'm really torn about who to believe.

 

I posted Scott Adam's article "The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science" because it is related to the lack of national concern required for political action on climate change. Again, most polls do not show climate change as a significant concern to most Americans. In many polls it doesn't even make it into the top 15 concerns of Americans. Adam's specifically refers to himself as a "Non-Expert" in the article title so I don't think he is asking for you to believe him. His article is about why he, and others, have little concern. You want political climate action, you need to raise the level of concern. This is particularly true now that Trump will soon be president. In my last post, I included a quote of of my favorite part of Adam's article. I appears that most only read that quote and commented on that. Here is the heart of of the article explaining the skepticism of catastrophic anthropological climate change.

 

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

 

 

It seems to me that a majority of experts could be wrong whenever you have a pattern that looks like this:

1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.

3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models.

4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career.

5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest.

6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

 

To raise concern for catastrophic anthropological climate change to allow political action, those in favor of political action must address the above points. These post need to be addressed not to scientists but to auto mechanics, factory workers, those employed in retail, etcetera. I think in particular item 4 above needs to be addressed.

 

Now go ahead and prove item 4 is true by your responses.

[CharonY]

1) No one changed anything. One is referring specifically to temperature increase, the other in overall changes in the climate, including e.g. precipitation changes. Both terms have been extensively used independently in the past.

 

2) Meaning that anything that is complicated and is not intuitively understood it must be wrong? Goshdarn, there goes basically every scientific disciplines. Do you know how complicated biology is?

 

3+5) are related and assume that you can create models doing things if you fudge the data. Thing is, that climate models depends on a number of assumptions that can be verified. I will let someone more familiar with them address specifics however.

 

4) Is there any data to substantiate that? Considering that the fossil energy industry is heavily pumping money into research and think tanks to publish things running counter the argument, considering that said industries are still quite influential and considering that the now dominating party in the US subscribes to that notion, it is hard to reconcile it with career suicide.

 

6) That is not even an argument.

[Prometheus]

 

1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

 

Renaming a model isn't the same as adjusting it. Bob's theory of gravity isn't any different from Newton's theory of gravity if everything else is the same.

 

But if you mean the model itself changes - well yes. Scientific models and theories change with time (really more data/better theory): you'd be doing it wrong if they didn't.

 

2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated.

 

Climate science isn't any more complicated than any other topic in hard sciences. Why single out climate science?

 

 

3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models.

 

Again, this is universal to all science: choices have to be made and justified regarding your variables. So again, why single out climate science?

 

 

4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career.

 

 

Demonstrably false. This individual has publicly stated he disagrees with the climate science consensus. Has his career ended? Just had a quick google: found loads of anti climate science cartoons - presumably drawn by cartoonists.

 

If someone is sacked because they deny climate science they have a good case for unfair dismissal. However we live in a free market and customers can choose to withhold their custom for any reason they see fit. If they won't buy a product because of the suppliers stance on climate science, that is entirely their prerogative.

 

 

 

5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest.

 

 

Same as question 2. So why single out climate science when all hard sciences navigate such problems?

 

 

 

6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible.

 

Because people are not interested in the science but what they can see, here and now. A similar problem is well documented in healthcare - a significant subset of people will not seek medical attention for minor problems but wait until they become major problems. It is probably a similar mindset.

Edited December 7, 2016 by Prometheus

[TheBeardedDude]

 

I posted Scott Adam's article "The Non-Expert Problem and Climate Change Science" because it is related to the lack of national concern required for political action on climate change. Again, most polls do not show climate change as a significant concern to most Americans. In many polls it doesn't even make it into the top 15 concerns of Americans. Adam's specifically refers to himself as a "Non-Expert" in the article title so I don't think he is asking for you to believe him. His article is about why he, and others, have little concern. You want political climate action, you need to raise the level of concern. This is particularly true now that Trump will soon be president. In my last post, I included a quote of of my favorite part of Adam's article. I appears that most only read that quote and commented on that. Here is the heart of of the article explaining the skepticism of catastrophic anthropological climate change.

 

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

 

 

To raise concern for catastrophic anthropological climate change to allow political action, those in favor of political action must address the above points. These post need to be addressed not to scientists but to auto mechanics, factory workers, those employed in retail, etcetera. I think in particular item 4 above needs to be addressed.

 

Now go ahead and prove item 4 is true by your responses.

 

I too will take a whack at this.

 

1. A theory has been “adjusted” in the past to maintain the conclusion even though the data has changed. For example, “Global warming” evolved to “climate change” because the models didn’t show universal warming.

 

Couple of things:

1) Global warming gave people a false impression that only changes in temperature should be expected. But we know (and knew some of these then but didn't communicate them well) now that not only will the mean annual temperature of the oceans and atmosphere change, but so will seasonality and seasonal extremes of temperature, sea level will rise in some places and fall in others, hydrology will change with some areas getting more precip and others less, the timing of the moisture distribution will change, the timing of events related to flora and fauna will change, etc.

 

2) the models test specific hypotheses regarding plausible future scenarios. So, as more and better data becomes available, what scenarios are plausible changes. But the real point to make here is that it is asserted that the models "didn't show" something and it is often said that the models aren't to be trusted because they don't agree with one another. This is exactly what one expects of models, because they aren't predictions of the future, they are hypotheses of what could happen under a given set of parameters. So, for instance, the amount and rate of warming differs from model to model because: 1) the human effect is altered (using the current anthropogenic rates, using rates that increase with expected increases in population simulating increased demand and consumption, reduced rates of release (multiple scenarios), complete cessation of human activities, 2) the resolution and amount of data available (grid size of your model is based upon how powerful a computer you have as well as how much data you have for each grid cell)

 

"2. Prediction models are complicated. When things are complicated you have more room for error. Climate science models are complicated."

 

And climate scientists know what they are doing and account for the complications. This is easy to determine by reading any given methods and conclusions sections of climate studies. Climate and climate change being complex does not mean we can't accurately study it.

 

"3. The models require human judgement to decide how variables should be treated. This allows humans to “tune” the output to a desired end. This is the case with climate science models."

 

All science requires human judgement in order to proceed. This isn't a salient point. What is disturbingly being suggested is that results are manipulated to give a desired result, I typically dismiss such conspiracy as someone being out of touch with the scientific literature. For instance, the models can (and are) bootstrapped so as to show the full range of plausible scenarios as well as the modeled uncertainty. Meaning that scientists explicitly take steps so as to avoid intentionally or unintentionally biasing their results.

 

"4. There is a severe social or economic penalty for having the “wrong” opinion in the field. As I already said, I agree with the consensus of climate scientists because saying otherwise in public would be social and career suicide for me even as a cartoonist. Imagine how much worse the pressure would be if science was my career. "

 

Couple of things:

​1) It wouldn't end your career. I have listened to several scientists in my field who don't believe in ACC, their careers are not in jeopardy in any way. I know scientists who hold other less popular hypotheses regarding a variety of subjects, and they too are not in jeopardy of having damaged careers. Scientists are not policing other scientists personal opinions. Heck, there is a geologist at a school in the northeast who peddles all sorts of unscientific conspiracies (I'm talking aliens and mind control in the fossil record kind of crazy) and even he isn't in any danger of losing his status as a scientist.

2) The energy industry doesn't care about your opinion on ACC, as long as you do your job well enough to make them money.

 

"5. There are so many variables that can be measured – and so many that can be ignored – that you can produce any result you want by choosing what to measure and what to ignore. Our measurement sensors do not cover all locations on earth, from the upper atmosphere to the bottom of the ocean, so we have the option to use the measurements that fit our predictions while discounting the rest."

 

Once again, this seems ignorant of the published science and the published models. One doesn't extrapolate a global signal from a singular site, the results and implications from that singular site can and are discussed. When we model current trends and look at paleoclimatic trends, we intentionally sample across multiple latitudes and environments so as to look at a more holistic signal.

 

"6. The argument from the other side looks disturbingly credible."

 

I've never seen the credible side of the climate denial argument. I have only seen an attempt to obfuscate the reality of the science while proclaiming that climates have always changed.

[CharonY]

Just to address the claim that the wording has changed due to failing models I have plotted the number of publications with either "global warming" or "climate change" (web of science) and it is quite clear that climate change has always been used more frequently (in fact. increasingly so) which makes sense as warming is just one of the aspects of climate change.

 

It does demonstrate that Adams did not bother to try to understand the issue, which is fine, he is not a scientist but it basically shows that it actually takes some effort to at least try to understand complicated matters. However one cannot just dismiss the facts based on that. You cannot dismiss cancer because it is complicated and poorly understood. Well, you can, but you will have to face the consequences.

 

I will also note that it is a bit weak if one publicly states a strong opinion and then immediately claim the victim role if one gets criticized for it. Obviously criticism should be fair and one should not hold a comic book author to anywhere near the standard of a climate researcher. But stating that one does not understand the subject is fair. And in this case, it is rather obvious, too.

[swansont]

Again, most polls do not show climate change as a significant concern to most Americans.

 

 

This is not true, and as it has been pointed out to you, that makes it a lie.

[waitforufo]

 

 

This is not true, and as it has been pointed out to you, that makes it a lie.

Not a lie.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-15-issues-americans-worried/story?id=29758744

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/03/what-will-be-the-biggest-issues-in-2016

[swansont]

Not a lie.

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-15-issues-americans-worried/story?id=29758744

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/03/what-will-be-the-biggest-issues-in-2016

 

 

Not being the most important issue doesn't mean that it isn't a significant concern. The Gallup poll in the first link is likely the very one I linked to, in which "Sixty-four percent of U.S. adults say they are worried a "great deal" or "fair amount" about global warming"

[Airbrush]

The fact that climate change is not high on the list of Americans concerns means climate change is losing the "ongoing" debate. That is why people think having a big, official, definitive, SPECTACULAR debate is a bad idea, because the climate deniers will win. Just like the upset when Trump won the election because of Hillary's stupidity and the stupidity of her campaign. That is a sad state! All I can say is cutting-edge computer-generated imagery animations. That is the tool. Now please get to work y'all CGI animators.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

President-elect Donald Trump said Sunday that “nobody really knows” whether climate change is real and that he is “studying” whether the United States should withdraw from the global warming agreement struck in Paris a year ago.

“I’m still open-minded. Nobody really knows,” Trump said. “Look, I’m somebody that gets it, and nobody really knows. It’s not something that’s so hard and fast. I do know this: Other countries are eating our lunch.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/12/11/trump-says-nobody-really-knows-if-climate-change-is-real/?utm_term=.3140f567f463

 

Trump is someone who "gets it"! What exactly does he think he gets if in fact "nobody knows"? And if no body knows who or what is he "studying" and being "open minded" about. I would call the statement a contradiction but the reality is that the comment is actually just a self asserting denial of Climate Change. Trump is basically saying the he is a smart open minded guy who has reviewed the climate issue in a nonpartisan manner and found that climate scientists don't real know what is happening. What Trump actually says vs what he implies are almost always different things.