Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Climate advocates are hanging their hopes on President-elect Trump’s alleged softening on the Paris climate agreement, and Trump’s admission that he thinks humans contribute to climate change.
Donald Trump Seems to Retreat on Some Promises
President-elect Donald J. Trump on Tuesday tempered some of his most extreme campaign promises, dropping his vow to jail Hillary Clinton, expressing doubt about the value of torturing terrorism suspects and pledging to have an open mind about climate change.
…
On climate change, he refused to repeat his promise to abandon the international climate accord reached last year in Paris, saying that, “I’m looking at it very closely.” But he said “I have an open mind to it” and that clean air and “crystal clear water” were vitally important.
…
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-visit.html
Some other interesting highlights;
…
Tom Friedman asks if Trump will withdraw from climate change accords. Trump: “I’m looking at it very closely. I have an open mind to it."
— Michael M. Grynbaum (@grynbaum) November 22, 2016
…
"I might have brought it up," Trump says of Farage meeting and wind farms.
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 22, 2016
…
Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-times-tweets.html
Huff Post also reports that Trump thinks humans contribute to climate change;
Donald Trump Now Says Humans Somehow Contribute To Climate Change
“There is some connectivity.”
Donald Trump said Tuesday he thinks there is “some” connection between human activity and climate change. It was a puzzling half-turn by the president-elect, who has called climate change a “hoax” numerous times, and in 2012 said it was invented by the Chinese.
His tune changed ― kind of ― during an interview with The New York Times.
Does Trump think human activity is linked to climate change? “I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much."
— Michael M. Grynbaum (@grynbaum) November 22, 2016
Trump said he is worried about the “cost” to American companies of policies and regulations meant to mitigate the effects of global warming.
…
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/donald-trump-climate_us_58348d49e4b09b6055ff19a3
Frankly I think advocate journalists are reading too much into Trump’s answer to the Paris agreement question.
What I find most fascinating about this media circus, is the media response to the “revelation” that Trump thinks humans contribute to climate change. To me the fact this revelation is any kind of surprise demonstrates an utter failure of journalism when it comes to covering climate skepticism.
The strawman caricature that skeptics think humans have no influence on climate simply isn’t true, in all but a few cases. But there is a huge gulf between believing humans probably nudge the climate a little, enough so we might one day be able to measure human influence on global climate, and declaring CO2 emissions to be a planetary emergency.
Hmm, even Wall street is loving it !
“Trump Momentum Powers Wall Street to Fresh Records, Dow Closes Above 19K”, the highest EVA !
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2016/11/22/trump-momentum-powers-wall-street-to-fresh-records-dow-closes-above-19k.html
Eric,
“What I find most fascinating about this media circus, is the media response to the “revelation” that Trump thinks humans contribute to climate change. To me the fact this revelation is any kind of surprise demonstrates an utter failure of journalism when it comes to covering climate skepticism.”
Well, you’re a journalist, so here’s your chance; What the hell is “climate skepticism”?
I think the climate community defines “denial” as believing its possible CO2 sensitivity might be less than 1.5c / doubling of CO2.
Thanks, Eric,
So it’s really “the climate community” you’re skeptical of . . not climate? ; )
It’s time to stop using the lingo the mass media propagandists have assigned to “us” and are comfy with us using, it seems to me. People (for the most part) seem to be well aware of the propagandist nature of current mass media systems, and I feel it behooves us to strike while the iron is hot, so to speak. Adding a word or two, like maybe *climate alarm skepticism*, *climate scare skepticism*, or *climate panic skepticism* would help inform the general public, such that “the media circus” would lose some clout in this realm, too.
I used to have long debates about this kind of thing with my grandpa. He was for hardline precise use of language. My view is labels and phrases after a while take on a meaning of their own, distinct from the original meaning of the words.
Well, sure, but
‘Trump on the Paris Climate Agreement: “I’m looking at it very closely” ‘
Climate alarm skepticism
. .
The media response to Trump’s bone toss was utterly Pavlonian.
That’s the way I see it. A virtual independent like Trump who is his own man and not in anyone’s pocket must be in permanent fits of laughter as he plans what the MSM are going to say next. The boot is firmly on the other foot now and he can play with those idiots like an orca with a seal pup.
If Trump keeps backtracking he will be a 100% lame duck one term president. Obviously not enough was done re data to show him AGW was a fraud. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=global+warming+trump&oq=global+warming+trump&gs_l=news-cc.3..43j0j43i53.2624.8495.0.9806.20.12.0.8.8.0.225.1772.2j8j2.12.0…0.0…1ac.1.vHGtIiMFIho or he is a complete idiot.
Oh Pleeeze.
Eliza, don’t believe all that propaganda the MSM puts out. They are not going to report the truth about Trump.
You are in the right place if you want to know the truth (or as close as we can get to it). Stick around and read the thoughts of some very knowledgeable people who post here. Knowledgeable about a lot of topics.
And you even get both sides of the story here, most of the time. The only time you don’t is when the other side declines to participate.
Eliza: “If Trump keeps backtracking…”
Which he isn’t, of course.
Gary: “Trumpophobia”__ an obsessive, irrational fear of Donald Trump.
You might be a Trumpophobe if …you think the Clinton Foundation is a charity.
You might be a Trumpophobe if …you think Benghazi was a movie.
You might be a Trumpophobe if …you voted more than once in the 2016 election.
You might be a Trumpophobe if …you think Al Gore can save the Planet.
You might be a Trumpophobe if …you think YOU can save the Planet.
You might be a Trumpophobe if …you think Somalis are refugees from Syria.
You might be a Trumpophobe if …you identify as a race other than your biological one.
You might be a Trumpophobe if …you drive a Prius.
etc…
Trump’s comment “I might have brought it up” refers to just one wind farm. An off-shore wind farm that happens to be in sight of his golf course complex in Scotland.
See this for what it is. Trump using his political power to interfere with another country’s domestic politics in order to further his own business interests.
I think this is Trump trying to be Trump the diplomat rather than Trump the Alpha-male billionaire, which is the persona that made him a successful businessman and won him the election.
I also think Trump is getting some terrible counsel from RINOs that still see CAGW as a means to ameliorate relations with Lefties, steal a lot of taxpayer money, get mega-tons of pork for their states/districts, usurp power and control over the economy, and get campaign contributions from Big Biz involved in the alt-energy sc-m.
Trump has the opportunity to kill the CAGW ho-x by the end of second term and save millions of lives in the Third World, save 10’s of millions of jobs, save the world economy $10’s of trillions, and destroy the Left, who inflicted the scourge on the world for 30+ years.
Screw the loony Lefties both foreign and domestic– Make the World Great Again..
“But he said “I have an open mind to it” and that clean air and “crystal clear water” were vitally important.”
This is not “climate”. It is “environment”, and this is the only thing we can and must take care of. Climate wise, the earth and the sun do what they do, and we’re only riding along like mites on an elephant…
test 1 2 3
Hurray, only my university account has been blocked!
I think the best interpretation of Trump’s statements on climate is that he has pathetic desire to be loved and says what he thinks the audience wants to hear. In front of a Republican crowd, he’ll say that climate is a hoax. In front of a crowd of New York Times journalists, he’ll say that climate change is real and human-made.
Some president.
Amen
I think the better interpretation i that he doesn’t want to give the MSM an excuse to rant against him.
SR
I now read the full transcript. Donald Trump makes Ken Rice and Miriam O’Brien look coherent.
Where is Trump wrong in his position on “climate”?
I dunno. I could not detect a position. I learned that Trump had an uncle with feelings, but the rest was just rambling.
“Donald Trump makes Ken Rice and Miriam O’Brien look coherent.”
Seek professional psychiatric assistance!
Except, that isn’t what he said. Some troll.
Tol = Troll?
“I think the best interpretation of Trump’s statements on climate is that he has pathetic desire to be loved and says what he thinks the audience wants to hear.”
And I think you haven’t the first clue what you’re wittering about.
Remember “Bush Derangement Syndrome”?
You’re suffering from “Trump Derangement Syndrome”.
Trump’s win has really boiled your piss, hasn’t it?
@catweazle666
I’m indeed worried about the geopolitical implications of President Trump, I see his administration as a real test for the strength of US institutions, and I am concerned about the racism and sexism he has stirred up.
I don’t think that having a Trump climate policy for 8 years makes a lot of difference from having a Clinton climate policy for 8 years.
But while a Clinton climate policy was roughly predictable — she would have continued Obama’s policy but with reduced vigour — a Trump climate policy is not.
Trump was a firm supporter of climate policy before he ran for president. Trump has called climate change a Chinese hoax, a ridiculous theory because it if were a hoax, the Chinese had nothing to do with it. He wants to pull the US out of the Paris Agreement, a meaningless gesture as Paris does not oblige the USA to do anything. Or maybe he does not want to abandon Paris. He talks about reviving coal and stimulating shale gas, ignoring that shale gas killed coal. He talks about clean coal, which is typically understood to be coal with carbon capture and storage.
In sum, I am more puzzled than worried about Trump’s climate policy.
I’m more concerned about the actual racism stirred up by Obama and the race hustlers he supports.
First of all, coal has not been killed, yet. It is still the largest provider of electricity generation.
The clean coal reference and reference to carbon capture is only typically MISunderstood by those people who believe that CO2 is unclean. The reality is that the newer coal plants are cleaner in the sense that there are fewer particulates, NOx and SOx which can only be a positive move.
CO2 of course is essential for all life on earth ( with water and sunshine enabling photosynthesis) and which almost reached a level during the Little Ice Age which could have meant the end of life on earth. We don’t want to go back there.
As an aside, a practical method of carbon capture on the scale which would be necessary has not yet been created. Trump’s climate policy, when announced, will I hope, reduce energy costs, create jobs and save the lives of countless people by reducing the need to heat or eat.
You have to remember Trump is not yet President and will have to be judged post 20th Jan and not on interpretations (accurate or distorted) before then. He would be silly to be too clear before 20th Jan.
SteveT
“But there is a huge gulf between believing humans probably nudge the climate a little, enough so we might one day be able to measure human influence on global climate, and declaring CO2 emissions to be a planetary emergency.”
I dunno… maybe this helps?
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/pdf/annual-with-forcing.pdf
Oh, Goodie
A Berkeley Hockey Stick
Another model I presume.
“Another model I presume”
No actually.
And what’s more the lead scientist was Richard Muller, who was a sceptic prior to doing this, oh and BTW, the study was funded by the Koch bros.
(you do know what their MO is?)
” Richard Muller, who was a sceptic prior to doing this”
No, not really.
As to Koch Bros, you haven’t a clue what their MO is.
Busy post here. But the one thing Trump said that I’m keeping my eye on is that “You don’t tell your enemy what your plan is”. And obama can still do a lot of damage. Pardon hillary, perhaps some things on the Paris agreement, like for instance pay a huge amount of wealth up front, like he did with Iran….
I think Trump is playing the media as usual. Forget what he said to the NYT and look at his outline for the first 100 days and what he put in his Contract to the USA people –the later includes
“FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars’ worth of job-producing American energy reserves,including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.
…
SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward.
…
SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure”
Add to that , his first appointment was Ebell to clean up the EPA.
There is no way he will back down on this –if he does he’ll deserve all the criticism he will get.
“There is no way he will back down on this –if he does he’ll deserve all the criticism he will get.”
I am so waiting…..
The people in his transition team and likely political appointees are more consistent with his “Contract” than the extrapolations of his NYT comments….
Considering the fact that he can’t simply withdraw from the meaningless agreement, it kind of makes sense to be “looking at it very closely” and “have an open mind to it.” Rather than withdrawing, he could send it to the Senate for ratification as a treaty, where it will fall about 25 votes shy of the required 2/3 majority, or he could simply ignore it.
Actually, based on comments here by lawyers familiar with the U.S. practice, Trump can simply withdraw the U.S. from the COP21 Agreement simply by issuing an Executive Order, although perhaps the more elegant (and final) way of doing so would be to submit the agreement for ratification to the Senate, which of course would vote it down. As the agreement only commits the United States to submit periodic statements of how it is addressing climate change and to participate in the Green Climate Fund (with no agreement the allocation of the fund either by donors or recipients), it is possible to ignore the agreement and regularly submit a statement of what the U.S. is doing to promote research and to encourage energy efficiency. There is, in any case, very little chance that a Trump Administration with Republican-dominated House and Senate will pay billions into the Green Climate Fund. Ergo, the developing countries where almost all the emissions growth is occurring will not finance actions to reduce emissions and COP21 is futile anyway.
Can Hillary be pardoned prior to be convicted, or can a US president give someone a blank get out of jail card to be redeemed at a later date? (I live in the UK where such things can not happen)
Yes. Ford pardoned Nixon, despite the lack of charges, much less a conviction.
The important thing to keep in mind on the Nixon pardon is that Nixon was disgraced by having to resign.
Hillary and Bill have not been disgraced and they have that coming.
There are people who are still saying she did nothing wrong. These are the true deniers.
I would be satisfied after we get a thorough investigation and a listing of all the charges from her actions on the server and the Clinton Foundation. The list could be quite long. That might just shut up the Clinton defenders.
Both Clintons must be publicly disgraced for what they did so people won’t listen to them anymore.
After leaving office even Nixon managed to recover some of his reputation. I offer the same to the Clintons.
I can live with them being pardoned after we get a full listing of the charges.
“Both Clintons must be publicly disgraced for what they did so people won’t listen to them anymore.”
I like that idea. We want everyone to know just how morally bankrupt Bill and Hillary Clinton are.
Trump to scrap Nasa climate research in crackdown on ‘politicized science’, by Oliver Milman
Actions speak louder than words…
Considering the fact that NOAA and the USGS missions include Earth Science and NASA is the National Astronautics and Space Administration, people should be asking, “Why in the Hell was NASA spending taxpayer dollars on “research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena”?
NASA, under contract to other agencies and private industry, can deliver and maintain space-based hardware. Manipulating climate data is not in its remit.
Climate change is on balance good! A Limerick and explanation.
The Epoch named Anthropocene:
Man’s fire appeared on the scene.
CO2, it is good
makes it green, grows more food.
To call it THE threat, that’s obscene.
https://lenbilen.com/2016/11/22/climate-change-is-on-balance-good-a-limerick-and-explanation/
I think all those self-interested government departments are snowing him. He must fire them all; return NASA to aeronautic and space exploration and limit all climate work to NOAA – and reduce NOAA’s budget.
I can just now see how all those bureaucrat-scientist-political whores are pleading how vitally important their work is.
Meanwhile away from politics the observed (not modelled) climate continues to show evidence of warming…
Could we not have an article discussing this, the most extraordinary event in the 37 year history of the sea ice satellite record?
Trump is going to have to recognise the reality of the situation…
If his administration investigates NASA records, they’ll just find they represent accurately what’s going on.
Okay, I don’t remember where I read it, but apparently the satellite that is measuring this has lost something like 75% of it’s abilities to accurately determine the sea ice. Sorry, I’d love to give you the link, but it was posted by a blogger (I think) on realclimatescience..com (Tony Heller’s blog).
In essence, the poster (who “seemed” to know what he was talking about), said this data is completely errant and he went into reason why. I’m sorry, I can’t be more helpful, but apparently, that data is for the moment, corrupted.
Scott
Griff’s satellite graph is in line with temp measurements in the Arctic. Some parts have been 20 degrees C warmer than average.
That is exceptional and backs Griff’s statement that this is “extraordinary.” But it is not only the Arctic. The Antarctic sea ice is also now well below average. Interesting isn’t it that this climate change science site, at time when all the indicators show sustained warming, only wants to talk about politics?
Now, Simon calls temporary El Nino effects “sustained warming.”
Dave Fair
“Now, Simon calls temporary El Nino effects “sustained warming.”
Perhaps Dave you can explain to me why this El Nino is warmer than the last major one, which was warmer than the one before? El Nino has no affect on long term warming, it just provides a bit of noise. I mean are you really that blinded by your denial of the warming?
Perhaps it’s something to do with the Earth warming up from the Little Ice Age, simon?
To start with:
About a tenth of a degree C in 18 years? That’s a real big warming trend? Coming out of the Little Ice Age? And models say what?
About that idea that El Nino has no effect on long term trends, read some Bob Tisdale and get back to me.
catweazle666
“Perhaps it’s something to do with the Earth warming up from the Little Ice Age, simon?”
Nope, that is an answer long debuncked. We should be cooling now. Read all about it.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/11/record-heat-despite-a-cold-sun/
“Nope, that is an answer long debuncked”
In that case, you will be able to link to the peer reviewed papers that debunked it, won’t you?
That doesn’t mean crackpot alarmist blogs such as (un)skepticalscience, (un)realscience or that silly woman with a thing about Hot Whoppers.
catweazle666
Read the article. First graph tells the story. We should be cooling, we are not. There is a good reason.
Rubbish.
Dave Fair
“About that idea that El Nino has no effect on long term trends, read some Bob Tisdale and get back to me.”
I’ve read his stuff. Interesting, but does not change a thing. El Ninos have been happening for ever. They don’t affect the long term warming or cooling. Put them into the data…. you get warming. Take them out… you get warming. Like saying you can lift yourself into the air by pulling on your shoe laces.
Read more about PDO and ENSO, Simon.
Dave Fair
Given you seem to have such a great understanding, why don’t you stop blowing hot air and tell me why I’m wrong?
For one, check out the 1977 Pacific Climate Shift. Also:
“why don’t you stop blowing hot air and tell me why I’m wrong?”
Because it would be a total waste of bandwidth.
He may as well try to teach a goldfish quantum physics.
Dave Fair
“For one, check out the 1977 Pacific Climate Shift”
So what does that actually mean Dave? Seriously they are just words. Explain it, or give up. And while you are at it, write peer reviewed paper so you can change current thinking on the topic
I give you two references to ENSO impacts on climate, Simon, and you give me gratuitous comments. Pal review? Seriously?
catweazle666 November 24, 2016 at 6:00 pm
“why don’t you stop blowing hot air and tell me why I’m wrong?”
Because it would be a total waste of bandwidth.
He may as well try to teach a goldfish quantum physics.”
Well it would help if he actually understood what he is saying instead of parroting gibberish. At least you seem to know you are twisting things.
A poster over at realclimatescience.com has said the satellite doing these measurements is something like 75% down and that the data is completely off. Can’t be of anymore help than that. I suppose you could go through recent posts over there? He really seemed to know what he was talking about.
Observed, how? Don’t say satellites or you will fail. Oh, you said satellite, you fail! Satellites don’t measure a thing…once you get that, you can get reality!
“Observed, how? Don’t say satellites or you will fail. Oh, you said satellite, you fail! Satellites don’t measure a thing…once you get that, you can get reality!”
Mmmmm, let’s see ….
“Satellites don’t measure a thing”
Oh, they don’t?
In that case we can scrub UAH v6.0 (beta5) and RSS v4.0 Global Mean Temperature “measurements” can we?
That’ll leave the surface thermometer record then.
They do calculate stuff however using sensors and algorithms.
From a logical (if you accept the UAH data), never mind a scientific standpoint, it is you that fails.
“Toneb November 23, 2016 at 5:47 am
They do calculate stuff however using sensors and algorithms.”
My point exactly!
“Could we not have an article discussing this, the most extraordinary event in the 37 year history of the sea ice satellite record?
============
Wouldn’t you rather watch grass growing?
or paint drying… for ten epic hours?
Why is it about watching ice melt that turns you on, Griff?
Whoops, that went horribly wrong. A bit like Griff’s attempts to get us all worried about nothing.
Let me try again:
Good
A gnat’s hair of time compared to the age of the earth.
In the past there was a lot more ice at the N Pole, at other times there was none. In future no doubt there will be more and there will also be none.
It’s called nature Griff, get over it.
Lower-than-usual arctic extent in November is “the most extraordinary event in the 37 year history of the sea ice satellite record?” Griff, exactly what sort of dire consequences are you expecting from more open water than usual in the freezing arctic night sky?
Griff,
See the likely reason here.
And the long term trend:
no. It isn’t a DMI sensor. That meme was exploded days ago.
That’s real ice data from a real working satellite there.
“Meanwhile away from politics the observed (not modelled) climate continues to show evidence of warming…”
No it doesn’t.
Stop making stuff up.
Looks like the end of the downswing in an approximate 60-year cycle.
Like I said, Griffie, give it a few more years before you spend more trillions.
We have recent research which collected all the ice data going back 150 years… including all the cold war sub records, the soviet data, the whaling ship records, all the met records, etc.
and there hasn’t been this sort of low event or these low extents in all that time.
There hasn’t been a temp anomaly like this in records going back nearly 70 years.
So when you have all finished making excuses (no there is no sensor fault), look at the actual, real data and tell me why arctic sea ice extent uniquely decreased after the start of the freeze, why it is uniquely at this low level and why we are uniquely seeing plus 36 degree F temp anomaly at a time when it is dark over the arctic…
(I say uniquely -let’s qualify that as ‘uniquely in 150 years’)
If it isn’t warming or is a cycle or its cooling, you can come up with some real evidence based on scientific observation as to why these events are transpiring, right?
The Arctic seems to produce adequate amounts of ice every winter. Give it a few years before panicking, Griffie. A couple of decades does not a climate make.
Dave Fair November 24, 2016 at 11:14 am
“The Arctic seems to produce adequate amounts of ice every winter. Give it a few years before panicking, Griffie. A couple of decades does not a climate make.”
So when will you think there is no longer an “adequate” amount of sea ice Davie? When will you be concerned this trend is going to continue? Can I suggest it will probably be late before you are honest enough to admit it to yourself.
The “trend” in summer Arctic ice flattened out ten years ago, Simon. Find a better “Look! Squirrel!”
Too late to do exactly what, Simon?
The only areas where humanity is affecting climate temperatures are localised UHI and data manipulation. On the scale of ‘global’ warming, we’re contributing 9/8 of sweet FA. People should have the courage to stand up and say so rather than hedging their bets with claims of modest impacts. After 30 years and untold $billions there is STILL no empirical proof whatsoever of the positive feedbacks required to drive runaway warming temperatures. We contribute nothing to global temperatures.
There is at least the potential here for Trump to properly open the debate again after Obama tried to shut it down with his ‘settled science’, ‘flat earth society meeting’ hysterical rhetoric. For Trump to say he is ‘looking closely’ at it means that at some point he will have to justify his position and present the findings of his close looking, thereby unleashing the sceptical scientists into the full media glare. There won’t be any more little Gavin scampering off stage to hide from the debate in the wings with his comforter.
Not only that but the whole mitigation vs prevention economic and logistical debate gets opened up and it’s a debate the blob simply cannot win. There are plenty of World class scientist at the top of their games who can provide a watertight case against climate alarmism and unless someone has conclusive empirical evidence to undermine that position then Trump can only be viewed as justified.
The media will of course howl and scream but they are currently at the very nadir of their credibility ratings and will once again be exposed as the leftist propaganda mouthpieces they really are.
Possibly an overoptimistic scenario but we can always hope …
Of course it was plausible that manmade CO2 emissions affected climate but we already did the experiment and collected the data and that data largely refutes the hypothesis.
The trouble is that it all morphed from a science matter into a social justice issue so it doesn’t matter what the data says any more. If it were possible to get journalists & scientivists to grasp that far more harm than good is being done by climate policy….Alas there is no grown-up debate any more, just playground name-calling of anyone who disagrees with the fashionable neo-puritan memes.
Trump delights in appearing to be maverick but he’s a deal-maker at heart. In effect the Paris agreement is to limit temperature rise and according to the data you can achieve that just by business as usual. The real requirement is to clear out the luddite, anti-growth environmentalist deadwood from positions of influence so that sane believers and disbelievers of manmade climate change can amicably disagree but still reach a sensible common purpose rather than continuing to throw money down the drain.
Also in same interview they tell Trump that GE make wind turbines in california which seems to be a total lie ? :
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1319052/ge-close-california-factory
I agree as also mentioned here earlier. The cause of Fossil fuel emissions in our climate can only be defined if we reduce large uncertainties on climate relating to natural causes. We are not yet able to understand that extent about natural causes and hence the huge role of CO2 as claimed can never be true. It is as simple as that.The most saddening part is that major policies are in place based on that theory, that involves a huge sum of money. It deviates the genuine need of the society.
I believe there’s to be a conference of some sort re de-bunking the global warming myth (Griffiths website [chap that wrote ” World Without Cancer: the story of vitamin B17″]) should be interesting if you’ve got spare dosh for attending in person or via video link.
Can I as an outsider who has read a lot about Trump and watched the three debates say that:-
1 I never expected him to go after Hillary for two reasons (i) it could happen to him after he finishes as president and (ii) I saw a photo of the two Clintons Trump and one of his wives all laughing and clearly socialising together only a few years ago suggesting they had more in common that they had differences at a personal level.
This made me think some of his electioneering stances were just political razzle-dazzle. He is not the first to seek public office who has resorted to that.
2 On torture Trump said he had changed his mind because he became convinced you could could not rely on “confessions ” as tortured people may say what they think the torturer wants to hear
His mind was changed by discussion with the retired General whom he is considering for Secretary of Defense who apparently persuaded Trump that torture was neither effective nor reliable
If so then so much the better in that it shows he is prepared to listen to expertise and learn.
On the climate lets wait and see before jumping at shadows – but what no 2 above does suggest is that climate skeptics need to be there advising him lest others do
waterboarding is not torture and we never asked for confessions 🙂 we asked for specific information which we then checked and if they lied 🙂 … well the process started again … which we never had to do more than once …
“1. I never expected him to go after Hillary for two reasons (i) it could happen to him after he finishes as president”
Good point. And it really looks bad if a sitting president starts prosecuting the leader of the opposition. That’s what happens in third-world authoritarian regimes. The optics would be horrible, and probably harm U.S. national security by putting out an image of a nation in political chaos. We want our enemies to think we are strong and united, not divided.
Hillary will get her just punishment some day, I feel sure. Trump doesn’t need to get personally involved in it any more than possible.