Trump's Denial of Climate Change

[Willie71]

If anyone wants a pretty good explanation of why conservatives won't be swayed by a debate, this book is a pretty good read,

 

https://www.amazon.ca/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

 

Much of the current research us discussed, and debating or arguing with conservatives tends to strengthen their beliefs, not moderate them. I struggle with this, because I tend to focus on evidence. Presenting good evidence is a losing strategy in this case though.

[swansont]

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

 

Solar photovoltaic is now cheaper than fossil fuels in many places. Just in case facts will inform further discussion.

 

http://qz.com/871907/2016-was-the-year-solar-panels-finally-became-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-just-wait-for-2017/

[ecoli]

If anyone wants a pretty good explanation of why conservatives won't be swayed by a debate, this book is a pretty good read,

 

https://www.amazon.ca/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514

 

Much of the current research us discussed, and debating or arguing with conservatives tends to strengthen their beliefs, not moderate them. I struggle with this, because I tend to focus on evidence. Presenting good evidence is a losing strategy in this case though.

 

This is human nature. Republicans are particularly stubborn on climate change, but it is hard for anyone to actually change their mind.

[Ten oz]

 

This is human nature. Republicans are particularly stubborn on climate change, but it is hard for anyone to actually change their mind.

I don't believe it is a matter of changing ones mind. It is a tactic. A painfully effective tactic Republicans employ. They deny climate change, deny that the accessibility of guns matters, deny evolution, deny that the economy recovered under Obama, deny crime is down, deny illegal immigration has been at net zero, they deny anything which is convenient for them to deny. They successfully cloud the water with doubt knowing that most people respect compromise and they can bully honest people into concesions. So we concede that some people don't understand or believe climate change, concede that militia means every individual everywhere, concede evolution vs creation is a choice, concede, concede, concede.

 

Republicans know Climate Change is real. They also know denial of it gives them flexibility and influence. By denying Climate Change they how successfully created a paradigm in which attempting to convince them has become a bigger focus than any actual policy. Their stuborness now leads most climate discussion. Denial works! We all just watched Donald Trump dismiss and deny reality all the way into winning the presidency of the United States.

 

Saying it hard to change ones mind provides Republicans with respect they do not deserve. Respect that their views are heart felt; they are not. They are liars who deny simply to manipulate debate and shift focus.

[ecoli]

I'm just saying persuasive politicians can and will do this no matter what side of the aisle they are on. Trump happens to be really good at it.

[Ten oz]

I'm just saying persuasive politicians can and will do this no matter what side of the aisle they are on. Trump happens to be really good at it.

I disagree. Despite the generally accepted line that all politicians lie all actually don't and the ones who do vary in degree. politicians are people and different people have different thresholds for shame. Trump can't be embarrassed and appears, in my opinion, to be without shame. That isn't a trait I feel is an appropriate one to be describe in the positive. It reflects poorly on his supporters. It shows them to be dishonest as they are willing to accept lies. Bad lies at that. Trump is not even a good enough liar for it to be plausible that his supporters believe his lies.

 

China is an emerging economy and heavily relies on fossil fuel. China relies on dirty energy to a greater degree than the U.S.. Yet Trump says Climate Change is a Chinese hoax(?)! Potential international agreements to reduce greenhouse gases would be harder on China than the U.S.. As a lie Trump's remarks are nonsensical and if truly meant as a joke inappropriate and unfunny.

 

Trump isn't a good liar. His base simple doesn't care. It is sport. Their team made it to the Superbowl. They will cheer their team on during the game no matter what.

[Airbrush]

Even though China relies heavily on fossil fuel, they also produce more renewable energy than any nation, over twice as much renewable energy as the US. Mostly from hydropower, but China is second only to the US in production of wind power, and produces the most energy from solar of any nation. China takes renewable energy seriously and wants to become the "go to" country to purchase your renewable energy technology.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

[waitforufo]

Mostly from hydropower...

 

Hydropower is evil. Ask any environmentalist. If you are an environmentalist and claim that hydropower is good, please list the names a locations of dams that you think shouldn't be removed or breached.

Edited January 3, 2017 by waitforufo

[iNow]

Hydropower is about more than just dams. People who wish to protect the environment are not some one-dimensional monolith who all think and feel the same. You only pretend they are so you can summarily dismiss them and treat them as subhuman.

 

You suggest that every single person who supports the environment thinks that hydropower is evil. Per the rules of this forum, the onus is on you to support that.

 

Of course, as we all already know, you won't support it because A) you can't as it's completely false, and B) you lack enough self-respect and respect for other members here to even bother trying.

Edited January 3, 2017 by iNow

[waitforufo]

Hydropower is about more than just dams. People who wish to protect the environment are not some one-dimensional monolith who all think and feel the same. You only pretend they are so you can summarily dismiss them and treat them as subhuman.

 

You suggest that every single person who supports the environment thinks that hydropower is evil. Per the rules of this forum, the onus is on you to support that.

 

Of course, as we all already know, you won't support it because A) you can't as it's completely false, and B) you lack enough self-respect and respect for other members here to even bother trying.

No, I don't think people who wish to protect the environment are some one-dimensional monolith. Quite the opposite actually. One zero compromise environmentalist causes the entire movement to crumble. Sure, they will say the are for some form of power generation, but only if there is zero risk whatsoever to the environment. That risk includes disrupting the natural beauty of the environment with man made things like powerlines.

 

Your response is proof to my point. You can't even name one dam? Who are you afraid to offend? How about the Three Gorges Dam? Grand Coulee Dam? Hoover Dam? Bonneville Dam? Denison Dam? Kentucky Dam? Garrison Dam? You can't pick one and say, yes we should keep this dam?

[iNow]

Sure, keep them. And?

[rangerx]

One zero compromise environmentalist causes the entire movement to crumble. Sure, they will say the are for some form of power generation, but only if there is zero risk whatsoever to the environment. That risk includes disrupting the natural beauty of the environment with man made things like powerlines

 

 

Yet again, not one shred of evidence to support a claim. Just drivel.

[Delta1212]

No, I don't think people who wish to protect the environment are some one-dimensional monolith. Quite the opposite actually. One zero compromise environmentalist causes the entire movement to crumble. Sure, they will say the are for some form of power generation, but only if there is zero risk whatsoever to the environment. That risk includes disrupting the natural beauty of the environment with man made things like powerlines.

 

Your response is proof to my point. You can't even name one dam? Who are you afraid to offend? How about the Three Gorges Dam? Grand Coulee Dam? Hoover Dam? Bonneville Dam? Denison Dam? Kentucky Dam? Garrison Dam? You can't pick one and say, yes we should keep this dam?

Name one politician you don't believe should be killed.

[Ten oz]

No, I don't think people who wish to protect the environment are some one-dimensional monolith. Quite the opposite actually. One zero compromise environmentalist causes the entire movement to crumble. Sure, they will say the are for some form of power generation, but only if there is zero risk whatsoever to the environment. That risk includes disrupting the natural beauty of the environment with man made things like powerlines.

 

Your response is proof to my point. You can't even name one dam? Who are you afraid to offend? How about the Three Gorges Dam? Grand Coulee Dam? Hoover Dam? Bonneville Dam? Denison Dam? Kentucky Dam? Garrison Dam? You can't pick one and say, yes we should keep this dam?

You mean the existence of one enviromentalist whom can be legitimately targeted can be used to attack all related science?

 

Not all hydroelectricity comes from dams. There are also pump storage plants and micro hydro electric systems. Asking for posters to name dams to prove not everyone is anti hydroelectric tech is like demanding we name individual airlines companies to prove were aren't anti flying.

[swansont]

No, I don't think people who wish to protect the environment are some one-dimensional monolith. Quite the opposite actually. One zero compromise environmentalist causes the entire movement to crumble. Sure, they will say the are for some form of power generation, but only if there is zero risk whatsoever to the environment.

 

 

I can't get past the complete contradiction in this short passage. You say they are not monoliths, and then say that one who will not compromise will cause the movement to crumble (which is laughably wrong), and that they only want power with zero risk. Which is monolithic behavior.

 

To assert that the existence of even one at the extreme end of the spectrum will cause the movement to crumble is ludicrous. It's a naive ideology that the world works the way you think it works, without bothering to examine it to see if there is any empirical data to see if it works the way you expect. There are eco-terrorists out there, and they do not represent the entirety of the environmentalist movement. As with pretty much all causes, there is a spectrum of ideologies. And yet the cause still exists, with multiple groups fighting for it in their own way, and often disagreeing with each other on immediate goals and methods.

[swansont]

 

 

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"

 

 

New survey results. "great concern" at 45%, "a fair amount" at 21%, for a total of 66%

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/206030/global-warming-concern-three-decade-high.aspx?

[CharonY]

So now we have another step not only in denying global warming, but also in dismantling efforts to slow it. Link.

 

 

 

The aim of the Paris deal is to reduce emissions enough to stave off a warming of the planet by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, the level at which, experts say, the Earth will be irrevocably locked into a future of extreme droughts, flooding and shortages of food and water.

But analysts say Mr. Trump’s order signals that the United States will not meet its pledges under the Paris deal to cut its emissions about 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

“Meeting the U.S. terms of the Paris Agreement would require full enforcement of the current regulations, plus additional regulations,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a climate scientist at Princeton University. “It takes a comprehensive effort involving every country doing what they committed to and more.”

He said Mr. Trump’s order “sends a signal to other countries that they might not have to meet their commitments — which would mean that the world would fail to stay out of the climate danger zone."

[Strange]

Hydropower is evil. Ask any environmentalist. If you are an environmentalist and claim that hydropower is good ...

 

 

What is this fallacy called? Maybe it is just a plain old straw man.

 

Hydropower and dams have negative environmental effects. But any form of power generation does. It is about balancing costs and benefits. Hydropower has killed more people (and removed more land from cultivation) than nuclear, but I suspect more people are anti-nuclear on principle. If the biggest concern is CO₂ then both of these are probably better than coal. If the biggest concern is cost or US jobs or the land around your house or the profits from your oil well, then the choice will be different.

 

But none of these are "good" in any sense (other than they generate power) some are just less bad than others in various ways.

[Ken Fabian]

It's always misleading to generalise, yet without generalising a lot of issues are difficult to make sense of. Do I have serious environmental concerns? Yes. Am I an Environmentalist? I suspect, invoking generalisation, that lots of people would see me that way. But there are no minimum standards or set of rules. It's a very broad grouping that includes a wide range of views, some of which are contradictory. I can accept that, with respect to climate change, hydro is much less damaging than coal whilst retaining concerns for the local impacts on rivers and dependent ecoysystems. Like lots of real world people with climate and other environmental concerns I recognise the necessity for compromise whilst retaining a commitment to push for more and better policy responses.

 

"Hydro is evil" - not sure that it's about good or evil, rather about costs vs benefits, but it's not a requirement for "environmentalists" to hold the view that hydro is evil. There are people who identify as pro-nuclear simultaneously with environmentalism. Some are more concerned with protection of remnant ecosystems, some are involved locally on local land use issues - those tend to be strongly opposed to hydro. Me, I see the climate/emissions/energy conundrum as fundamental, both as an environmental issue affecting precious remnant ecosystems and as an economic issue affecting long term human prosperity and security ie that failure to manage that overarching problem will ultimatel undermine the efforts of people wanting to protect what's left of Earth's wilderness.

 

It should be no surprise that those with strong environmental concerns saw AGW's consequences as a serious environmental issue. What is surprising is the extent that commerce, industry, economists and policy makers have resisted seeing AGW as a serious economic and security concern and have gone to great lengths to encourage economic alarmist fear of actions to limit and avoid climate disruption. If "evil" has any appropriate application I suggest it applies best to those in positions of trust and responsibility who willfully reject expert advice and promote climate science denial and other obstructionist actions, doing so knowing that the science is almost certainly fundamentally sound and the problem is real, serious and urgent, with consequences that are effectively irreversible.

[Prometheus]

What is this fallacy called? Maybe it is just a plain old straw man.

 

False dichotomy?

 

I've noticed some people like to classify things in a binary manner claiming any nuances in between are just created by sophistry.

[Ten oz]

 

False dichotomy?

 

I've noticed some people like to classify things in a binary manner claiming any nuances in between are just created by sophistry.

A red heirring supporting circular reasoning. Asserting that environmentalist hate hydroelectricity changes the topic (red heirring) and then the empty assertion is used to imply (circular reasoning) some sort of inequity in the environmentalism broadly.

 

Glaciers continue to melt, the ocean temp continues to rise, mass extinction proceeds, and etc while we (humans) debate the issue and refuse to allow actions. Petty sarcasms about hydroelectricity merely support doing nothing.

[swansont]

Trump isn't going to stop efforts to mitigate climate change, just impede them. People and companies will continue to install clean energy because it's the cheapest option in some areas of the world. Companies also know that Trump and the GOP won't last forever, so they are best served by getting out ahead of the inevitable carbon tax, or whatever solution will be presented.

[Nature Geek]

Trump isn't going to stop efforts to mitigate climate change, just impede them. People and companies will continue to install clean energy because it's the cheapest option in some areas of the world. Companies also know that Trump and the GOP won't last forever, so they are best served by getting out ahead of the inevitable carbon tax, or whatever solution will be presented.

That is among the stupidest part of Trump's actions. He says he is dismantling the clean energy initiatives so as to bring coal mining jobs back. Those jobs are not going to come back because of Trump's changes.

 

No power company in the US is going to build a new coal-fired plant. Natural gas is cheaper. And it takes years to build a plant - by the time they have completed it, we may have a new President who will just reinstall all of those restrictions.

 

And what little mining is done, is now much more automated than it used to be, and requires fewer workers.

 

At most, Trump has slowed down the closing of coal-fired power plants, and slowed down the downsizing of the coal industry. And this, at the cost of preventing more damage to our planet.

 

Bad.

[Ten oz]

Trump isn't going to stop efforts to mitigate climate change, just impede them. People and companies will continue to install clean energy because it's the cheapest option in some areas of the world. Companies also know that Trump and the GOP won't last forever, so they are best served by getting out ahead of the inevitable carbon tax, or whatever solution will be presented.

Impeding when we are already a few decades behind is still Terrible.

[rangerx]

Republicans are quick to point out that China and India are the greatest contributors to pollution and carbon uptake. Yet on the other hand, joining them by deregulating the American coal industry is somehow the solution? /boggle