Guest essay by Eric Worrall
How could President Trump ignore the most world’s most important leading scientists?
Trump State of the Union speech: what climate change experts say
Emily Holden in Washington
Thu 7 Feb 2019 01.20 AEDTTop scientists condemn State of the Union address and say future presidents must confront climate change as urgent priority
…
Lisa Graumlich, the dean of the environment college at the University of Washington, attended the State of the Union address as a guest of the Washington congresswoman Pramila Jayapal.
“I have been doing research on climate change since the 1970s, and it always seemed very far away in time and space. It was something that was going to happen when people’s grandchildren were alive. And that has changed,” Graumlich said. “I don’t think that future presidents will find themselves in this position, because people are feeling the effects of climate change.”
…
Even the Democratic rebuttal to Trump’s speech, by the ex-Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, only mentioned climate change once, in a list of priorities the US could pursue. However, Bernie Sanders, in his own response speech, noted warnings in reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
“How can a president of the United States give a State of the Union speech and not mention – not one word – about climate change when the leading scientists of the world tell us that climate change is real, that climate change is caused by human activity, that climate change is already causing devastating harm in the United States,” Sanders said. “Furthermore, the scientists tell us we have a very short, 12 years, not a lot of time in order to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/06/trump-state-of-the-union-climate-change
The climate scientists believe rapidly worsening climate impocts will force acknowledgement of their important work in future State of the Union speeches.
But what if the climate scientists are wrong? What if Hurricanes fail to get worse? What if people reject their speculative attempts to link bitter winter cold with global warming? What if people get fed up with the torqued up IPCC reports, the parade of weeping climate scientists, and the endless, endless demands that everyone should pay more tax to save the world?
This just exemplifies what a narrow, limited world those folks live in.
Trump most certainly did mention climate change during the SOTU. He referred to it repeatedly by the politically correct name: socialism.
This is simply an ongoing rebranding from glabal warming, to climate chance, to the green new deal. Underlying the process is the dream of capitalism being replaced by socialism.
These climate scientists who feed at government troughs have lowered themselves to a level that’s below slip and fall lawyers.
“Lisa Graumlich, the dean of the environment college at the University of Washington, attended the State of the Union address as a guest of the Washington congresswoman Pramila Jayapal.”
And probably gave NO THOUGHT to expending a larger carbon footprint for this one frivolous action than many Americans have in a month.
But Lisa Graulich is so much more important, a dean of the environment college, so that’s OK.
Aren’t such people supposed to be held to a HIGHER standard? Why do “climate scientists” get to FLAUNT their own warnings while castigating everyone else for INACTION?
” ex-Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, only mentioned climate change once,”
Also known as “Loser.” with a losing proposition for the American people.
Joining the Loser ranks along with Hilarity Clinton, and Beto “Booger” O’Rourke.
She also didn’t bother to watch Trump’s speech, and spent most of her rebuttal talking about herself and her family.
Ivan Kinsman-
kinsman to Trofim Denisovich Lysenko maybe. Save the shallow appeals to corrupt authority for the kiddies who don’t know any better. You’ve mistakenly blundered into the championship ring.
Experts
A dead give away that what you are about to read is Buncombe.
As more people become familiar with the stupidity of the Green New Deal details, skeptics won’t need to convince anyone of anything anymore:
1. Eliminate all air travel completely in 10 years
2. Replace all buildings in the country with new energy efficient structures
3. Eliminate all cows
These are just the most obviously stupid, there’s more
Shouldn’t “Climate Scientists” be more shocked that Senator Sanders is claiming that “climate change is already causing devastating harm in the United States” and claiming we only have 12 years to do something about it? Trump isn’t mentioning their pet issue, but Sanders is misrepresenting it.
NO WORRIES! Dems in the House have just proposed two bills to address climate change: The first requires that all buildings in the nation be re-built to higher standards, and the second phases out air travel over the next 10 years, with high-speed rail built everywhere for transportation! How to pay for it? EASY!! Just print more money!
(But I don’t want to take a train to Paris…)
Just when you think the aggregate IQ of Congress couldn’t get any lower, we get an influx of these guys.
Maybe they can work with Hank Johnson and pass a bill to stabilize the floating island of Guam.
AOC says the government will pay for it. All of her blathering statements gives the implication that wealth taxes and more deficit spending will do the trick.
What should Trump have said?
Perhaps he could point out the presence of 1,500 private jets at the Davos climate conference, opposition to nuclear power, opposition to hydropower, the lack of criticism of China increasing emissions, and the constant criticism of the U.S. who is decreasing emissions, and the overall fantasy world of their plans and schemes.
He could conclude with – He’ll start to get serious about climate change when they do.
“We know that many Sigma Xi members were impacted by the recent shutdown. At least five percent of Sigma Xi members work directly in government agencies and the vast majority of Sigma Xi members rely on government funding and services to conduct their research.”
Not sure how many climate scientists here, but guess this is self-explanatory! The stupid part of this is government money, with exceptions, is often paid through another vendor. Cases I know of where direct payments are made, like to a consultant, has little to do with the work, at least for that amount of shut-down time. I understand their concern, but not their lack of discipline. VAST MAJORITY? “….acknowledgement of their important work….”
Terraforming Mars is too far in the future, what we want is a proof of concept right now.
There are plenty of good spots for the Greens to prove that their ideas will work. So what do they need. A place with lots of sunlight and a bit of wind. So in both the USA and certainly here in Australia we have semi deserts. True water is a problem, but we will drill a few wells for them, and even the old fashioned windmills can raise water, when the wind does blow, up comes water.
Not that many years ago, say the 1930 tees, we had farmers with just the basics, and they survived. and todays Greens will have solar panels and modern windmills.
We presently have “Mars” type dwellings as test sites, to prove that humans can survive, so lets have some “True believers” from the Green blob “Prove that they are right. “.
MJE
Or how about challenging the Greens to return Greenland to green?
The worst thing about global warming/climate change/extreme weather is the “green cure”. Wind/solar/bio-fuels can not replace natural gas, crude oil and coal. Nuclear will eventually, but renewables are an impossible dream. The green solution is economically unsustainable and does nothing to change the climate…not that it needs changing. The best thing about life here on the central coast of California is we don’t have ugly, worthless wind turbines sticking up all over the place. Hopefully, with PG&E bankrupt, our landscapes may survive for a few more years before the wind turbine plague arrives.
Did Mr Trump mention quantum mechanics or the string theory ?
Had he omitted, shall we expect worldwide physicists outcry ? No, those people don’t need politics, their equations are good enough to do without taxes.
“climate change is already causing devastating harm in the United States,” Senator Sanders said.
Wow, how did I miss that factual report? And was there ever a utopian time when the climate was just perfect?
In his SOTU talk Donald Trump did not mention the Easter Bunny or Unicorns which are far more pressing issues than Climate Change which has been going on since the start of the Earth billions of years ago.
After thirty years of doom prognostications;
Hurricanes have failed to get worse or to get more numerous.
Holden fails to name “top scientists”.
Instead she names a parade of activists, politicians and failed politicians.
N.B. Holden included a reference to “350.org’s Bill McKibben”.
I filled out a poll earlier today.
I did not include “climate change” or “global warming” at any level of concern, let alone citing them as important to me.
I specifically stated “No” to another question that asked if I was worried about “climate change”.
Another question that alluded to problems and cited “energy” also got a solid no.
i.e. another poll with tricks and traps laid so they can cite “climate change” worries is going to rank “climate change” of very low interest.
Which is not surprising, as it is less than a year ago that politicians who failed to get elected decided that “climate change” or “global warming” are career killers in competitive elections.
Every time the word scientist comes after the word climate, it should be written “scientists” (with the quotation marks).
Probably because we’ve heard the same bloody thing for the past 50 years!
“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” — Harvard biologist George Wald, first Earth Day 1970
That’s why he never mentioned (Man-made) “Climate Change”.
He is in politics but he’s not a politician. Why would he mention political science?
President Trump did mention the “climate change” agenda is his SOTU speech. It is just that he did not use the language of climastrology, and used the language of political climate science. I will repeat his words here for anyone that was listening for the junk science buzzwords that socialists have spent so much time drilling into the social fabric:
That is what he thinks about climate change, and what he plans to do about it!
Another problems he didn’t mention: Falling off the edge of the flat earth.
But what if the climate scientists are wrong? What if Hurricanes fail to get worse? What if people reject their speculative attempts to link bitter winter cold with global warming? What if people get fed up with the torqued up IPCC reports, the parade of weeping climate scientists, and the endless, endless demands that everyone should pay more tax to save the world?
The gravy train comes to a grinding halt thats what happens, then revenge happens hopefully and the fraudsters bankrupted jailed and jeerd.
But what if the climate scientists are wrong? What if Hurricanes fail to get worse? What if people reject their speculative attempts to link bitter winter cold with global warming? What if people get fed up with the torqued up IPCC reports, the parade of weeping climate scientists, and the endless, endless demands that everyone should pay more tax to save the world?
The gravy train comes to a grinding halt thats what happens, then revenge happens hopefully and the fraudsters bankrupted jailed and jeerd.