Trump Updates Climate Stance: It's Not a Chinese Hoax!

[Squarechoke]

Trump, the man that doesn't know the difference between weather and climate, is hardly someone you'll go to for a relevant opinion on climate change. That he talks negatively about others supposedly having a political agenda is also pretty ironic.

 

[Squarechoke]

I don't know. I've never seen it from really far away.

Did you observe the events depicted in the Bible that you believe in?

I somehow don't believe that you only believe in things that you see.

 

[luckyshot]

These anti Trump threads are so snide and pissy. It makes for a fun laugh early in the morn'.

I'm glad that's what you took away from this thread... not that climate change is a very real threat and we are absolutely asleep at the wheel... but that libruls don't like Trump.

Well that's the rub. How to fight this problem without inconveniencing humanity? Because nobody is going to vote to inconvenience themselves. There are people on high horses that act like they would, but I don't buy it. You're still gonna fly a few times a year to do stuff and visit people. You're still gonna use the air conditioning on hot days. You're still gonna buy a bunch of unnecessary shit that has been manufactured and shipped using, you know, energy.

This all seems moot until someone finds a way to make global warming fixes work economically.

There are macro fixes available. If we had deterred half our our defense budget into fighting climate change for the past two decades, 1) still no one would have invaded us and 2) we'd be 100% on solar and wind by now.

 

[Seano]

I'm glad that's what you took away from this thread... not that climate change is a very real threat and we are absolutely asleep at the wheel... but that libruls don't like Trump.

.

Trump actually didn't argue that, if you read the full interview you posted. He just questions the causes.

 

[lilelvis]

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

As an aside, volcanoes can be pretty damn influential on climate change but probably not to the extent most people imagine save for historical periods when there's been profound activity, and geographical location can also play a role.

For instance, eruptions that occur at mid or high latitudes only exert influence in the hemisphere they're in and whilst they release tons of CO2 in their own right, it tends to be slightly offset by the emitting of ash and sulfur dioxide which combines with water in the atmosphere to form aerosols that reflect solar radiation and results in a cooling effect over large swaths of the planet.

But wouldn't it effect the CO2 readings at that particular station? That's all I'm asking.

 

[curryjunkie]

He's not. The "grade" is are your sins forgiven?

well in that case you are fucked

 

[lilelvis]

This is interesting. Both sides represented pretty well.

 

[ocean size]

Well that's the rub. How to fight this problem without inconveniencing humanity? Because nobody is going to vote to inconvenience themselves. There are people on high horses that act like they would, but I don't buy it. You're still gonna fly a few times a year to do stuff and visit people. You're still gonna use the air conditioning on hot days. You're still gonna buy a bunch of unnecessary shit that has been manufactured and shipped using, you know, energy.

This all seems moot until someone finds a way to make global warming fixes work economically.

You've got half a point there, for sure. But emissions trading has worked, and was a republican endorsed method even, for a number of other things we needed to limit in the atmosphere.

We know renewable energy in its variety of forms is coming one way or another, produces a lot of jobs and the prices is getting low enough to be competitive.

We should have been subsidizing development heavily 15 years ago and then the US would be selling the technology all over the world, instead it is China. That's true whether or not the climate is warming so my point is some of the solutions make economic sense regardless.

But wouldn't it effect the CO2 readings at that particular station? That's all I'm asking.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/mauna-loa-co2-record/

Good question, appears that it is pretty easy to tell volcanic CO2 from baseline.

 

[ocean size]

Trump actually didn't argue that, if you read the full interview you posted. He just questions the causes.

He questioned its very nature- 'something's changing and it'll change back again'

 

[AndroidRage]

In a characteristically inconsistent 60 Minutes interview dRumpf had this to say about the existential threat of our times:

https://www.npr.org/2018/10/15/6574...le-mattis-exit-climate-change-and-kim-jong-un

So there you go. You can rest easy for the remainder of your life knowing that something drastic is happening, but we are not causing it... because if we were, you know, jobs (even though there are enough clean energy jobs available to replace fossil fuel jobs if we had the political will to make it so) and also, nothing that would hurt the interests of the Republican party could possibly be true.

It's not a hoax, but then again, science is fake news, so probably a hoax.

It will probably just change back by itself.

Probably.

Sure.

Future generations will look back at Republicans in the era of climate denial with absolute scorn, and justifiably so.

What future generations?

 

[no fat chicks]

There is no political agenda.

The Keeling Curve observatory mentioned in the Exxon internal documents I've posted before - from 1979 - that mention a number of potential ramifications that corroborate with and have been far better fleshed out into the modern scientific consensus in the four decades since... is still a great source of data.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

@gatchaman @Ripskater please address this, along with any of our other denier brahs.

 

[cincymma79]

Everyone posting about this drives an electric car and has solar panels

 

[Makani]

Scientists do have political agendas. But we should not rely on a guy like Trump to tell us what's happening or not happening to the climate. Because he, most definitely, has a political agenda.

If you asked him privately about it, he'd probably say, "what the fuck do I know?". But he's the kind of a guy who will always struggle for an answer when put on the spot. Sometimes to his own detriment.

In any case, I feel like we should not even need the concept of climate change, to have the environment on our agenda. You should always strive to conserve the environment for the long-term, most especially as a conservative.

If you leave behind a toxic wasteland for your grand-children, what kind of a "conservative" were you?

The kind who got paid, son! Yeehaw!

I kid, the real ground forces in the war against climate science are poor and uneducated. Like you said, they've somehow been convinced that if climate change is a hoax, we can do whatever the fuck we want. The Earth is a giant ecosystem, and we're very much part of it. My grandpa was a conservative who hated hippies, but if he caught you littering at your blind you were getting a talking to. I feel everyone's deeply held convictions these days are about stupid shit.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Man made Climate Change theory is a hoax.

but god is real?

 

[Ripskater]

Ta

but god is real?

Yes he is.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Yes he is.

any evidence for that?

 

[Ripskater]

any evidence for that?

Not any that you would believe. Belief in God requires faith.

Believing in man made climate change also requires faith.

 

[MayhemMonkey]

Not any that you would believe. Belief in God requires faith.

Believing in man made climate change also requires faith.

nope, one has sufficient evidence whilst the other doesnt.

you seem to require evidence only when it suits you

 

[Teen Wolf]

Oh America, 2018... why do you hate my soul?

This forum has shown Americans to be the dumbest of all first world nations.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Consensus is not proof.

Hey Rip, what would you consider "proof" for man-made climate change?