Quantcast
Trump: 'Nobody Really Knows' If Climate Change Is Real

Forums - Politics Discussion - Trump: 'Nobody Really Knows' If Climate Change Is Real

Pemalite said:
Flilix said:

Apparently, most of these people seem to think that scientists say that climate change will destroy the earth.

Sometimes God lets us suffer (because he loves us? There was a reason for our suffering, but I can't remember), but he would never completly destroy his earth.

Luckily, I don't know any of these people in real life.

To assume that a particular God is going to interfere with "Earth" is a baseless assumption, ignoring the fact there is no evidence to support the existence of a deity anyway. - Regardless of which of the several thousand Gods you believe in.

This Earth will eventually be destroyed when Sol (Our Sun) becomes a Red Giant. Our Atmosphere, oceans, everything, will be evaporated. - It is just a matter of time, not if. - And there is nothing any of the thousands of Gods that various people believe in, will do to stop it.
The Suns fuel is finite.

***********

As for Climate Change. It is real. Majority of scientists, weather researches, institutions/organizations/governments support it's happening.

There is undeniable proof.

We have records from Tree rings that points to increases in carbon.
We have records in our Arctic regions via Ice-pole gathering that points to increases of Carbon and other gases.
We have recorded what gases take up what amount in our atmosphere for decades, which has seen constitent increases in Carbon.
We have recorded increases in sea levels.
We have recorded increases in carbonic acid in our oceans.
We have recoded increases in desertification.
We have recorded average increases in temperature.
We have recorded increases in catastrophic weather events.

We can observe the effect that Carbon has in trapping thermal radiation in a scientific laboratory. Ergo. Carbon would have the *exact* same effect in our atmosphere trapping thermal radiation from our Sun.

The only people who can deny Climate Change are idiots or who have an ulterior motive. (Aka. Money.)
Trump is clearly both, an idiot and has an ulterior motive. (Business.)

And why dont they include sun activity, and the role the sun plays? I mean it is the source of our heat right? But lets forget about that and focus on a non harmful gas that feeds plants. If i'm not mistaken at one point the sarah desert was at one point not a desert, but it is now and that happened before the industrial revolution. who is to blame for that one?



Around the Network

I want to ask those of you who accuse scientists of being politicized. Can't it go both ways?

Why isn't the opposition politicizing the same number of scientists that publish the same amount of research that push back against environmentalists? It can be done easily, since there are enough people who have enough money who'd like to continue to sell/buy fossil fuels. If they believe "real" science is possibly on their side, they should be participating in politicization process, but they are not. Why?



thranx said:
global cooling, i mean global warming, i mean climate change, i mean global cooling again, i mean its all the co2s fault. oh please. they cant even keep their science straight. when they have actual facts and answers and dont have to resort to fudging data maybe more people will take them seriously. until than all these cap and trade deals, and kyoto deals just hold the US and West back while giving free reign to others. a joke

Global cooling? Never heard of.
Global warming and climate change are, in this case, the same thing. If the earth is getting hotter, the climate is changing. This is indeed the result of CO2 emissions.

There are plenty of actual facts, and most people take the scientists seriously. But some people don't even bother looking them up, most of them don't even know how global warming works.



Flilix said:
thranx said:
global cooling, i mean global warming, i mean climate change, i mean global cooling again, i mean its all the co2s fault. oh please. they cant even keep their science straight. when they have actual facts and answers and dont have to resort to fudging data maybe more people will take them seriously. until than all these cap and trade deals, and kyoto deals just hold the US and West back while giving free reign to others. a joke

Global cooling? Never heard of.
Global warming and climate change are, in this case, the same thing. If the earth is getting hotter, the climate is changing. This is indeed the result of CO2 emissions.

There are plenty of actual facts, and most people take the scientists seriously. But some people don't even bother looking them up, most of them don't even know how global warming works.

Ha ha ha. Never heard of it. You must really research the science than.

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

And yes of course they downplay it. In hindsight everything is clear, just like gobal cooling, global warming will be looked at as a joke. Especially since the evidence just inst there. But hey lets kill our economies over it and let worse polluters take charge will we hurt ourselves

Edit: sorry didn't read your whole post. It went from global warming to climate change because the eveidence isn't there. there is a reason the public doesn't care, its not affecting them. All thats been happening is wordplay



SvennoJ said:
mrstickball said:
The irony is that with everything Trump says about climate change... With his endorsement of fast-tracking nuclear energy, especially Gen IV reactors, America will likely be a lot cleaner and better off than what it'd be if we continued to go to renewables + NatGas for baseline and backup systems.

True, Nuclear should be able to tide us over until fushion becomes economically viable.
But at the same time he wants to increase fracking and fossil fuels in general, competing nuclear and renewables out of the market.

You need fracking even for renewables. When wind/solar don't run, you need backups, and combined cycle gas plants are the most favored for that. Additionally, the lower gas prices go, the quicker coal gets phased out. Gas is at least 50% cleaner than coal, so it'd help quite a bit, among other things.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
numberwang said:

Do you care about climate change? It seems few people do...

http://data.myworld2015.org/

UN Poll Shows Climate Change Is the Lowest of All Global Concerns

Only when the surveys are broken down between rich and poor countries does “climate change” creep higher up the list. In poor countries it becomes even less of a concern.

 People even consider their choice of smartphone more important...

 

 

At least they all agree they need to be better educated on the subject :)



mrstickball said:
SvennoJ said:

True, Nuclear should be able to tide us over until fushion becomes economically viable.
But at the same time he wants to increase fracking and fossil fuels in general, competing nuclear and renewables out of the market.

You need fracking even for renewables. When wind/solar don't run, you need backups, and combined cycle gas plants are the most favored for that. Additionally, the lower gas prices go, the quicker coal gets phased out. Gas is at least 50% cleaner than coal, so it'd help quite a bit, among other things.

Nuclear is good for a backup, yet gas and oil compete with nuclear.

Is gas really cleaner? Nobody really knows :p
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/60392

Certainly not 50% compared to clean coal burning plants.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/10/151013-boundary-dam-test-for-clean-coal-one-year-later/

There's geothermal too, which doesn't depend on backups. Perhaps a good alternative instead of drilling deeper and deeper for oil. There certainly is enough drilling tech around I would think.

Ofcourse gas and oil are multipurpose, and easily exported for profit.



SvennoJ said:
mrstickball said:

You need fracking even for renewables. When wind/solar don't run, you need backups, and combined cycle gas plants are the most favored for that. Additionally, the lower gas prices go, the quicker coal gets phased out. Gas is at least 50% cleaner than coal, so it'd help quite a bit, among other things.

Nuclear is good for a backup, yet gas and oil compete with nuclear.

Is gas really cleaner? Nobody really knows :p
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/60392

Certainly not 50% compared to clean coal burning plants.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2015/10/151013-boundary-dam-test-for-clean-coal-one-year-later/

There's geothermal too, which doesn't depend on backups. Perhaps a good alternative instead of drilling deeper and deeper for oil. There certainly is enough drilling tech around I would think.

Ofcourse gas and oil are multipurpose, and easily exported for profit.

The EIA disagrees with you:

https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=73&t=11

 

Geothermal has its own issues, namely insane cost and Earthquakes:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/geothermal-drilling-earthquakes/



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

numberwang said:

Do you care about climate change? It seems few people do...

http://data.myworld2015.org/

UN Poll Shows Climate Change Is the Lowest of All Global Concerns

Only when the surveys are broken down between rich and poor countries does “climate change” creep higher up the list. In poor countries it becomes even less of a concern.

 People even consider their choice of smartphone more important...

 

 

Globally, "few people care" about climate change because 3 billion+ people live in poverty; therefore having more pressing concerns. Living in a first world country, we have most of those figured out, so we can start focusing on issues that don't impact us on a daily basis.



#1 Amb-ass-ador

Ljink96 said:

Trump breeds hatred, those with hatred in their hearts love trump. Well, that's my experience with most Trump supporters. 

Somehow I find this comment strange, in the context of Trump-Clinton, as the Clinton campaign was nothing but hate, at tha same time Trump campaign was focusing on socioeconomic matters.

 

Trump does not equal his supporters, but based on media, Trump supporters were much more civil than Clinton supporters, before and after the elections.


Teeqoz said:

You are right, I didn't mean literally all. Should've written a substantial enough amount that it suggests we are wrong.

Norway will soon enough be connected to the European power grid, so whatever excess electricity we produce will be exported to other countries. I don't care too much about individual countries though, it's the net global effect that matters, and in that regard, Norwegian hydroelectricity won't influence it much. We do export a substantial amount of oil and gas though....

Anyway, my post wasn't really related to how we should solve the problem. It was more related to how there most likely is a problem in the first place.

PS: For all those peop saying he is technically right because nobody knows 100% for sure, the same is true for all science, but we don't just throw it out the window because if it. We will throw it out the window though if it is disproven or replaced by another model with superior predictive capabilities (say, Einstein's theory of general relativity replacing Newtonian gravity. Though Newtonian physics are still utilized a lot because, while it isn't completely accurate, for most uses, the difference is so tiny that it is negligible).

Norway is already selling hydroelectricity abroad. The nordic energy stock prices depend heavily on Norway's ability to produce power. Of course, the market is much bigger for Norway when it doesn't need to sell power via Sweden and Finland.

You know, Trump isn't throwing the science out of the window either (at least based on what the topic's about), as he's taking a neutral stand (=he does not it is happening, anymore than he's saying it is not happening). I already pointed out that the context is trade agreements (that are somewhat unfair) and the emissions requirements that are holding back growth. How things currently are is, that climate change is a tool in politics, instead of making politics to cut emissions.

 

 

Trump's neutrality towards pretty much everything can be good or a bad thing. Which will it be, we'll see in the future. I have my hopes high that this will return the talk back to science and facts.




Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.