Trump: Nobody Really Knows What's Causing Climate Change

[Free Vulcan]

President-elect Donald Trump told “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace he’s “open-minded” about global warming, but added that “nobody really knows” what’s going on with the climate.

Trump has thrown the media for a loop over what he actually thinks about global warming, first telling The New York Times he had an “open mind” on the subject, and then meeting with former Vice President Al Gore in December.

In that same NYT interview, Trump talked about the “Climategate” email scandal where top scientists were allegedly exposed for having fiddled around with climate data to make warming look worse than it actually was.

He said a lot of smart people disagree that humans are driving global warming, and even took NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. to task for trying to link global warming to storms.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/11/trump-nobody-really-knows-whats-causing-climate-change/

[Vulcan]

[Emjay]

President-elect Donald Trump told “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace he’s “open-minded” about global warming, but added that “nobody really knows” what’s going on with the climate.

Trump has thrown the media for a loop over what he actually thinks about global warming, first telling The New York Times he had an “open mind” on the subject, and then meeting with former Vice President Al Gore in December.

In that same NYT interview, Trump talked about the “Climategate” email scandal where top scientists were allegedly exposed for having fiddled around with climate data to make warming look worse than it actually was.

He said a lot of smart people disagree that humans are driving global warming, and even took NYT publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. to task for trying to link global warming to storms.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/11/trump-nobody-really-knows-whats-causing-climate-change/

The Shadow Knows.

But scientists can be bought.

[corbe]

   His (probable) SoS designee also waffles on this:

Does Exxon Mobil currently refute the overwhelming scientific consensus that humans are accelerating climate change?


Perhaps surprisingly to some folks: no.

Unlike many Texas Republicans, Exxon Mobil says it outwardly accepts the science and it has for more than a decade.

“The risk of climate change is clear, and the risk warrants action,” the company’s website says. “Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect.”

For years now, Tillerson has expressed support for a revenue-neutral carbon tax as a means of reducing earth-warming greenhouse gas emissions.

In a 2009 speech in Washington D.C., he called it “the most efficient means of reflecting the cost of carbon in all economic decisions — from investments made by companies to fuel their requirements to the product choices made by consumers.”

“A carbon tax may be better suited for setting a uniform standard to hold all nations accountable,” he said.

Still, “Tillerson has not endorsed the bold actions needed to combat climate change,” said Daniel Cohan, a Rice University environmental engineering professor who studies climate and energy.

How do Tillerson’s views compare to others he might work with in Trump’s cabinet?

In an email, Cohan called it “ironic” that an Exxon CEO ranks “greener than other Trump picks who deny the realities of climate change.”


Indeed, compared to some of Trump’s other high-profile appointments, Tillerson’s climate views are more progressive. Last week, the president-elect tapped Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency. He, along with Texas’ past two Republican attorneys general, has been a key player in the GOP’s legal crusade against Obama’s climate change policies, suing the EPA multiple times during his tenure.

“Scientists continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the actions of mankind,” Pruitt wrote in The National Review earlier this year.

In fact, an overwhelming majority of scientists believe that human activity is causing global warming.

Trump has vowed to unwind environmental policies the Obama administration has put in place to combat global warming, including a sweeping plan that would require states to slash earth-warming carbon emissions by shifting from coal power to natural gas and renewables over the next 15 years. He has dismissed the Clean Power Plan as a “war on coal” and also cast doubt on the established science behind the global warming, saying in a 2012 tweet that it is a concept “created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” On the campaign train he also promised to “cancel” the Paris climate agreement that nearly 200 countries inked last December.

Trump softened his climate-doubting rhetoric somewhat in a post-election interview with The New York Times, saying he thinks “there is some connectivity” between human activity and climate change. But he said “It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.”

On Friday, The Times reported that Trump’s transition team was circulating “an unusual 74-point questionnaire at the Department of Energy that requests the names of all employees and contractors who have attended climate change policy conferences, as well as emails and documents associated with the conferences.”

The questionnaire “suggests the Trump administration plans a witch hunt for civil servants who’ve simply been doing their jobs,” Robert Weissman, president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, told the Times in a statement.

Link (Shameless Plug)

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,237428.0.html

[Idiot]

Isn't that the truth.....glaciers in central park.......   The earth is constantly changing...get used to it.

[GtHawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hflx1fOZ9gg

[ABX]

Thank you. It wouldn't be a climate if it didn't change. A climate is a dynamic system, and everything can factor into it. The question isn't if it changes, it is what factors play into it (earth wobble, sun cycles, natural influences, man-made influences) and to what extent.

I get a bit frustrated with both sides of the issue, obviously the left treating it as a 'settled religion', but the Right screaming it is a 'hoax' or saying it is just 'weather' or 'seasons' (completely different things).

It is one of those scientific issues that has been corrupted by politics.