Trump on dire warnings in climate report: ‘I don’t believe it’

[Dexter]

Whoa, there, sparky. Almost all of whom? Nearly every geologist (we study climate, we study the lithic deposits made as a result of the climate, especially) I know--and there are quite a few--will tell you (if they don't rely on grants and are not tied directly into the university system (I.E. on the payroll)) that the science is far from settled, and that it is , nor is human activity or emissions the forcing agent in any global warming which may be occurring.

I didn't say the science is settled. I said almost all of the scientists in the most relevant field are saying something similar.

highly (as in 99.99% sure likely) that humans are not the forcing agent

This is simply not true based on the evidence. I think you're misinterpreting something or took as gospel the words of somebody that doesn't actually understand what they are talking about.

[Dexter]

Outside all the arguments, pro and con, regarding anthropogenic climate change, or what data is being fudged or not, or the fact that global cooling was all the rage in the 1970’s, the ultimate question is what are you going to do about something that is a natural part of Earth regardless if industrial man existed or not? Elected officials want to enact Green policies that many other countries have given up on that will only impoverish people without really showing any evidence the climate has been “fixed.”

They also cannot tell anybody what the ideal Earth climate should be. That’s similar to having a Dr tell you your blood pressure is abnormal but is unable to tell you what a normal, healthy blood pressure is

There are obviously large parts of this that are completely out of our control. That's not really disputed.

[Elderberry]

This is simply not true based on the evidence.

[Dexter]

If I linked you to modern scientific papers that backed up what I am saying you'd scoff and minimize the words of scientists. Nobody that lives in reality is arguing the fact that almost all climate scientists believe that human emissions impact the environment to various degrees.

[Dexter]

This is without question the most aggravating topic in politics for me. I don't really want to continue.

[Idiot]

I already get too involved in these conversations because I am trying to disagree with so many people at once. I do give links from time to time, but for the most part I'm not willing to put forth the extra effort when I'm already 99.99999999999% sure that I am right. There's also the problem that half of the links I might give you come from sources you won't accept as a rule, so in addition to doing extra research I would have to refine it by only pulling information from links you will trust.

[Idiot]

Whoa, there, sparky. Almost all of whom? Nearly every geologist (we study climate, we study the lithic deposits made as a result of the climate, especially) I know--and there are quite a few--will tell you (if they don't rely on grants and are not tied directly into the university system (I.E. on the payroll)) that the science is far from settled, and that it is highly (as in 99.99% sure likely) that humans are not the forcing agent, nor is human activity or emissions the forcing agent in any global warming which may be occurring. In fact, for over the last decade, there has been no warming according to satellite data. 
Taking a longer view, one which encompasses hundreds of millions of years, puts the current small fraction of the entire climate history of the planet in perspective--a perspective the average person is denied by presentations that only go back to the last temperature lows and which predict increases in temperature which simply do not occur. 
As I said before, what apparent agreement you are seeing is an artifact: of who is handed the microphone, who gets to the podium, who has the grant money (which is awarded on a political basis, because the politicians see not only a cash cow, but the means to more power) who does the 'peer review', the publicity, and who controls what thoughts, what research are published, and even access to unadulterated data.

If you never saw anything to the contrary, you might be convinced that there was no dissent in the scientific ranks, but as scientists well know, few things are ever met with universal agreement.

[sneakypete]

Whoa, there, sparky. Almost all of whom? Nearly every geologist (we study climate, we study the lithic deposits made as a result of the climate, especially) I know--and there are quite a few--will tell you (if they don't rely on grants and are not tied directly into the university system (I.E. on the payroll)) that the science is far from settled, and that it is highly (as in 99.99% sure likely) that humans are not the forcing agent, nor is human activity or emissions the forcing agent in any global warming which may be occurring. In fact, for over the last decade, there has been no warming according to satellite data. 
Taking a longer view, one which encompasses hundreds of millions of years, puts the current small fraction of the entire climate history of the planet in perspective--a perspective the average person is denied by presentations that only go back to the last temperature lows and which predict increases in temperature which simply do not occur. 
As I said before, what apparent agreement you are seeing is an artifact: of who is handed the microphone, who gets to the podium, who has the grant money (which is awarded on a political basis, because the politicians see not only a cash cow, but the means to more power) who does the 'peer review', the publicity, and who controls what thoughts, what research are published, and even access to unadulterated data.

If you never saw anything to the contrary, you might be convinced that there was no dissent in the scientific ranks, but as scientists well know, few things are ever met with universal agreement.

@Smokin Joe   @Dexter

Joe,you and all the others are wasting your time. His teebee tells him the planet is going to catch on fire and burn  unless we go back to living like cavemen,and he is POSITIVE his teebee will never lie to him.

[Dexter]

@Smokin Joe   @Dexter

Joe,you and all the others are wasting your time. His teebee tells him the planet is going to catch on fire and burn  unless we go back to living like cavemen,and he is POSITIVE his teebee will never lie to him.

I'm positive the scientists aren't lying about what they think is happening.

[Restored]

I reiterate, if Global Warming is so obvious and pervasive, where is the great disaster associated with it? Isn't Miami Beach supposed to be under water? Why was the wind chill 5 degrees here today? Why didn't it get into the 90's here this summer(like every other summer)? Why are we now being told about a possible cooling? I thought all the scientific evidence showed we were warming.
It's hard to get all fired up about this "disaster" when you never see it.

[Bigun]

@Smokin Joe   @Dexter

Joe,you and all the others are wasting your time. His teebee tells him the planet is going to catch on fire and burn  unless we go back to living like cavemen,and he is POSITIVE his teebee will never lie to him.

He's a troll!  has been since day one on TBR.

[Dexter]

He's a troll!  has been since day one on TBR.

Not agreeing with you doesn't make me a troll.

[LMAO]

I have no objection to that, but most want to boost solar power by restricting or making artificially more expensive conventional oil and gas.   Our prosperity depends on affordable power,  and we don't have the problems with air pollution that plague the Chinese.    We are not the problem,  but greens demand that the United States - and that means you and I - bear the burden for CO2 emissions being spewed into the atmosphere by China and India.   

There is no credible evidence of which I am aware - and please enlighten me if I'm wrong, @Dexter ,  that artificial burdens we place on U.S. citizens will tangibly affect the climate.   The science may say the climate is changing,  but that is not the same thing as saying there's anything we can do to reverse it.   What we CAN do is use our economic prosperity built on affordable energy to find ways to ameliorate the adverse impacts of climate change, and to further advance our already leading role in reducing air and water pollution.   Cleaner air benefits me;  reduced CO2 emissions - especially at the cost of my prosperity - do not.   

@Jazzhead

 

Climate change is not really an issue that excites me until politicians come up with ideas to “fix” it

 I would prefer environmental policies  where the positive effects can be seen. For example, I fish the St. Louis River a lot for walleyes. At one time it was nothing more than a cesspool. But now there is a waste treatment plant and you can actually eat the fish now in the river

[sneakypete]

I'm positive the scientists aren't lying about what they think is happening.

@Dexter

And therein lies your problem. You don't understand there is no such critter as an "independent scientist",and hasn't been for decades. Maybe even never.

They ALL work for some corporation that is paying them to do their research in order for it to come out a certain way so that corporation can profit from it. Even the ones that don't have real jobs,and only teach because the schools they teach at all receive corporate grant money to do dedicated research.

Does this mean that scientific research is never a good thing? Absolutely not! It does mean that each "gift" they "give" us must be questioned,though.

[Dexter]

It does mean that each "gift" they "give" us must be questioned,though.

Are you qualified to question their work? I'm not. We should at least consider what the scientists are saying. I'm not even trying to convince any of you that we need to force our energy sector to change. I just want you to understand that the most qualified people on Earth are telling us something about the climate and we should listen.

[LMAO]

Are you qualified to question their work? I'm not. We should at least consider what the scientists are saying. I'm not even trying to convince any of you that we need to force our energy sector to change. I just want you to understand that the most qualified people on Earth are telling us something about the climate and we should listen.

There’s a difference between the debate remaining in the scientific realm versus an ambitious politician who wants to come up with global warming reversing schemes that will never ever be shown to ever really work

[Bigun]

Not agreeing with you doesn't make me a troll.

No!  Trolling makes you a troll!

[Elderberry]

‘Embarrassing’: Climate Expert Explains What’s Wrong With The White House’s New Climate Report

https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/24/climate-change-donald-trump-report/

    Climate expert claims a White House climate report uses cherry-picked data that over exaggerates the risks posed by climate change.
    The scientists who produced the White House climate report made studying climate change more difficult, expert says.
    A new climate report from the White House suggests climate change will destroy the economy before the end of the century.

A climate change report published Friday contains cherry-picked data that appear designed to warn of the consequences if steps are not taken to mitigate global warming, according to one climate expert.

The scientists who wrote the National Climate Assessment (NCA) used unreliable information that exaggerates the risks global warming poses, University of Colorado Prof. Roger Pielke Jr. noted in a series of tweets. He fears the report will make it easier for critics to dismiss future climate studies.

“By presenting cherrypicked science, at odds w/ NCA Vol,1 & IPCC AR5, the authors of NCA Vol.2 have given a big fat gift to anyone who wants to dismiss climate science and policy,” Pielke Jr. wrote in a tweet Friday shortly after the White House released the report. “Embarrassing.”

[sneakypete]

Are you qualified to question their work?

@Dexter

Of course I am. I am not stupid,and there is this little thing you may have heard of called the "interweb" or some such crap,and there is all sorts of places there to do research.

I'm not.

And you never will be for as long as you accept what you are told without question.

 

We should at least consider what the scientists are saying. I'm not even trying to convince any of you that we need to force our energy sector to change. I just want you to understand that the most qualified people on Earth are telling us something about the climate and we should listen.

What YOU need to understand is that the people you are calling "the most qualified people on earth" are corporate employees being paid to sell an agenda.

[RetBobbyMI]

This climate change bs is just another fake discussion by those who couldn’t convince enough people to buy into their green house gasses, green whatever,  tree hugging bs argument.

[aligncare]

Are you qualified to question their work? I'm not. We should at least consider what the scientists are saying. I'm not even trying to convince any of you that we need to force our energy sector to change. I just want you to understand that the most qualified people on Earth are telling us something about the climate and we should listen.

The problem is that understanding requires not only an open mind but exposure to counter arguments.

The last thing I would want to do is introduce a dark note here but that’s not what we currently have. What we do have however is a corrupted academe and a biased media and an entertainment industry that has bought the chicken little story without giving it a second thought – settled science they say.

So without bringing in the sincerity of the scientific community, the information flow is tainted from start to finish.

[Jazzhead]

@Jazzhead

 

Climate change is not really an issue that excites me until politicians come up with ideas to “fix” it

 I would prefer environmental policies  where the positive effects can be seen. For example, I fish the St. Louis River a lot for walleyes. At one time it was nothing more than a cesspool. But now there is a waste treatment plant and you can actually eat the fish now in the river

Thanks, @LMAO .   What you and I want is what most Americans want - to remain prosperous while enjoying clean air and clean water.    As you say,  environmental polices that focus on pollution abatement yield tangible benefits.  But environmental policies focused on CO2 reduction alone not only fail to meet that standard,  they affirmatively jeopardize prosperity by placing artificial costs on the one thing  - affordable energy - that directly allows for jobs and the advancement of the human condition.   That cost to prosperity can be measured,  but the impact on the climate itself can only be guessed at.    It is insane to jeopardize the lives of ordinary people by throwing money away on such a vain and futile endeavor - unless the true purpose is a stalking horse for an anti-capitalist, anti-growth, anti-consumer agenda.   

The recent government report does not predict doom - it predicts higher, yet still affordable, costs associated with mitigating the effects of climate change.   Fine, let's address those costs if and when they arise.    And those higher costs are predicated on the worst case assumptions that there will be no significant gains, over the next century, in energy efficiency and worse than currently expected population growth.   Both those assumptions are manifestly unreasonable. 

 

[truth_seeker]

Not agreeing with you doesn't make me a troll.

Refusal toss imply state your qualifications, do however.

[Dexter]

settled science they say.

I'd be amazed if a single climate scientist has said that. They're not without integrity. There is a lot of alarming data though, and we should be listening.

[txradioguy]

I'd be amazed if a single climate scientist has said that. They're not without integrity. There is a lot of alarming data though, and we should be listening.

*ahem*

Climate Scientists Are Now Suing Critics Who Challenge 'Settled Science'

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/global-warming-science-lawsuits/

Not only do the alleged climate "experts" say the science is "settled"...they are starting to sue anyone who tries to argue that it's not...to include Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann.