Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 Next
Comments 22301 to 22350:
-
nigelj at 08:35 AM on 19 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
Sauerj @9, you say "John's frustration is based on historical facts, but I would caution against the use of the word "clowns" in the title."
The counter argument is the 'warmists' have generally played nice for decades and been almost painfully polite, me as much as anyone and it hasnt worked too well. It just seems 'clowns' is the truth. Trump likes to call "a spade a spade" and not be politically correct, so why shouldn't we do the same?
Are we coming down to Trumps level, or is blunt language the only way that will get through to Trumps people?
-
Christopher Gyles at 08:33 AM on 19 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
I think it's time for biologists step up efforts to preserve as much DNA from at-risk species as possible in doomsday vaults, because it looks like the odds that doomsday might well be on its way have grown astronomically.
-
nigelj at 08:09 AM on 19 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
Apologies for the typo. I meant that the only realistic solution to the ozone hole problem was for the government and industry to ban ozone depleting chemicals which is what they did in the end.
-
PluviAL at 08:02 AM on 19 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
Daniel Mocsny:
Nice summary, it got me out of my despair a little bit, after reading the equally good argument of the article. There are multiple benefits in petitioning our cities to increase density. I would like to drive less, but because American cities have this unified objective to limit building height, maximize floor footprint, and minimize density, it is very hard to find housing that is not 60 miles out of areas of interest.
On the other hand, you are right: My all-electric house bill varies from $265 to $45 by using windows to heat and cool the house(I also painted roof and walls with titanium dioxide rich paint, my own mix), and watching light efficiency and use. That’s and 80% reduction. My Prius yields 3 times that of my Titan. I also avoid flying, I had time to do research in Mexico, but avoided the flying, and am successfully, Googling my information. My water bill similarly went from $85 to $35 by converting my yard to a vegetable and fruit garden from lawn. So your argument is sound, by logic, and my own anecdote.
Still, I wish people would support finding planetary scale solutions, of the sort I research and recommend. It is just as important, and may be critically valuable if the worst feedback loops result. Having intelligent people, at least constructively, arguing such solutions is as critical for environmental security as is convincing people to do their individual bits that you suggest. For example, I am not allowed to mention my arguments here because it hurts people’s climate-change sensibilities. I accept it and fully understand the reasons, but it shows the narrowness of our thinking and searching.
Trump Demigod phenomenon is not be the worst we must face: Demigods are built on fear and greed, and fear will only increase as tribal division is propagated by ever tougher economic conditions resulting from environmental damage. There you have it, if you want to get really depressed.
-
nigelj at 07:24 AM on 19 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
Daniel Mocsny @ 10, thanks for the comments. I agree combating climate change starts with individual initiative and individual responsibility, and making personal commitments to some changes in our daily lives. However I disagree that this will be enough by itself. Some government rules or carbon taxes help promote beneficial behaviours.
The obvious historical example is tobacco, where in my country society encouraged people to give up, and promoted education campaigns, but this had useful, but limited effects. We combined this with taxes on tobacco to discourage smoking and also help with the costs of healthcare for smokers and numbers of smokers dropped. I think the parallels with climate change should be obvious. It’s a pragmatic approach and the majority supported government legislation.
The fact is in America the majority of people do seem to want some form of government legislation to combat climate change, yet have been let down by congress. I think this is disgraceful but I think that Trump will only last 4 years and sanity will prevail on climate change. I just hope its not too late.
It’s actually similar to the overall election. The majority wanted Clinton, but the election was won on the electoral college result, (but only just by a handful of votes). I just find the electoral college system strange, and can’t see why you don’t just decide the president on the popular vote. This would seem more democratic and more direct.
You quote the ozone layer issue, but this could never be remedied by personal choice. The main culprit was fridges, and their refrigerant chemicals, and no alternative fridges were on the market or likely to ever be. The manufacturers would be very unlikely to move on the issue. The only “practical” remedy for the problem was to ban ozone.
Here is a related issue. Individuals like you or me may take initiative on climate change, but I doubt companies ever would. The profit motive is just too powerful. This is why some government controls become inevitable.
On prohibition, I take your point. Prohibition of alcohol never worked. Prohibition of hard drugs struggles to work. We are entering a very difficult ideological and theoretical minefield, on the role of the government. I think one reason prohibition of alcohol failed was that it never made any sense to ban alcohol, as its just not harmful enough to have a total ban. The public treated the legislation with utter contemp.
I think governments are entitled ideologically to ban things, but should use this power sparingly. We already ban people from buying deadly poisons, or stealing! Who would argue with that?
But if the government “bans” things it removes freedom of choice, so there is a downside. Government can also ban things to preserve and increase its power, and abuse that power and we have seen examples.
The philosophical answer to this problem and series of conflicts is government should only “ban’ things if theres a compelling case. They need to prove an activity or substance causes serious harm and that the user of a substance becomes a significant threat to other people. I also think there has to be a majority of popular support for some ban.
Now let’s apply this principle to climate change. Burning fossil fuels is a threat not just to this generation of people but hundreds of future generations. I can’t think of a clearer case that would philosophically justify some action by government, as well as individuals.
-
John Hartz at 05:47 AM on 19 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
Daniel Mocsney: Members of the 2016 Electoral College have not yet voted. They will do so on Dec 19.
For details about the Electoral College system, go to the U.S. Electoral College website created by the National Archives and Records Administration.
-
Ravenken at 05:00 AM on 19 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
Someone made the point the other day that I have a hard time condeming. There is a real chance that this coming presidency could bring the world to its knees which in turn could stifle industry and therefore lower co2 emissions. If there is any chance... well, this is it - Economic Collapse.
-
Daniel Mocsny at 04:21 AM on 19 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
America, what have you done electing this guy?
Technically, "America" did not elect this guy, because Hillary won the popular vote. To phrase the question more correctly:
Electoral College, what have you done electing this guy?
Trump's election is bad, to be sure, but the individual still primarily determines the carbon footprint of the individual; ditto for the corporation, and for local and state governments. The smaller the entity, the greater the level of independence. For example, Hillary was hoping to cut all of our carbon footprints by something like 30% by the year 2025. Almost anyone who decides to care about climate change can exceed that cut in a few days with a little instruction. The higher an individual's carbon footprint is now (for example, because he or she flies a lot), the more easily he or she can cut it.
The failure of Prohibition in the USA illustrates that not even a Constitutional Amendment means anything unless sufficiently many people agree with it. People can and do change even deeply held beliefs - that's how we abolished slavery, and gave women the right to vote - but it doesn't happen by lobbying politicians or with the stroke of a pen or even by fighting a war. It happens over the course of billions of interactions between individuals in which persuasion occurs.
If there is any positive to flow from the unfolding catastrophe that is Trump, it's that enviro-hypocrisy isn't going to cut it. No longer can environmentalists pretend they can protect the climate by flying around on jets, imagining that only grandiose government action (that is, action by someone else) is relevant. There isn't going to be effective government action, and there was never going to be, as long as we have a country in which the overwhelming majority of people see no moral problem with everyday activities that make our biggest contributions to climate destruction: flying, driving, heating, cooling, eating meat, owning meat-eating pets, procreating, etc.
Most of the environmental movement seems to have bet the house on bypassing the individual. That worked for fixing the ozone hole (unless Trump decides to wreck that too), but only because almost no individuals had to become aware that their spray can propellants were changing. And also because sales of ozone-wrecking propellants were already dropping as consumers had been taking notice. With climate change, as anyone who has looked at carbon footprinting knows, the solution is not so simple.
Figuring out how to minimize our personal indulgence in the most climate-destructive activities, and then figuring out how to persuade our friends and neighbors to minimize theirs, is the only rational basis for "hope" on climate change. There is no purely technological, transparent solution. To get the deep emission cuts we need on the tight schedule we need requires individual "sacrifice" similar to, but exceeding in intensity and duration, what citizens did to win World War II.
Regardless of who sits in the White House, the difficulty of persuading your neighbors to stop driving, flying, etc. remains about the same. Consider that according to Wikipedia:
It is estimated that 134.5 million Americans cast a ballot in 2016. Considering a voting age population of 251.1 million people and voting eligible population of 231.5 million people, this a turnout rate of 53.6% and 58.1% respectively.
Over 40% of the voting eligible population was so unconcerned about all the issues at stake in this election that they didn't even vote. Let that sink in for a while. Most of those apathetic voters probably do not even have a strong position on climate change, given that this election gave voters just about the clearest opportunity to express a position. Persuading them to take real action on climate change - the only action that matters for anybody at any level of society, cutting the emissions they control - did not just suddenly become harder, because these people are apparently oblivious to who is running the Federal Government.
Imagine if we could persuade all 61 million Americans who voted for Hillary to take serious action to cut their carbon footprints, and train them to persuade their apathetic friends and neighbors - we could realize Hillary's 30% emission cut target for the year 2025 in a few months.
-
sauerj at 02:02 AM on 19 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
John's frustration is based on historical facts, but I would caution against the use of the word "clowns" in the title. I believe the spirit here is a form of mocking and thus a form of ad hominem. Instead of "... with clowns", I would suggest the objective "... Climate Action Oppositionist". Gandhi refused to engage in ad hominem tactics (link), and I think this strengthened his case in the long run. We should fight the 'sin' (the wrong policy, the wrong action), not the 'sinner' (the person). Yes, we should absolutely speak out with all our might, with all our power, with all the political & economic tools we have available, but we should still speak in a sense that is respectful to the human we are talking to. This will defuse the opposition's rebuttals, and appeal to the moral sense of all individuals. Remember: The battle of words is only partially with those we are directly speaking to. Just as important, if not more so, are how our words are processed by those on the side lines, who are listening to what we say, sizing up both sides with open, unbias, skeptical minds (especially the youth). The words we use, how we speak, the spirit that emanates from those words, is critical in gaining respect from open minds. We must train our minds to this ideal. I think, that if we use words that 'kill' (in spirit) the other side, then the result will be for both sides to embrace & rationalize (more & more) a demonizing position (result: no change from status quo). I believe a point-for-point historical correlative of this escalation of demonization occurred between 1770 & 1860 on the struggle over slavery in the US (in that case, to the point of arms).
-
JWRebel at 23:55 PM on 18 November 2016What President Trump means for the future of energy and climate
Sauerj @4: The problem with conservative types is that they reject a revenue neutral carbon tax as one more Washington trick to increasing the regulatory and tax burden, and to decide what happens to your income and spending. It will be difficult to think of a strategy to change this perception which has been assiduously inculcated by politicians and the media since Jimmy Carter.
It is important to realize that for well-intentioned conservatives, loyalty is their strongest value, and it is possible to leverage this in favor of renewable practices. Demeaning them, criticizing them for being backwards or anti-science, etcetc., will not sway them but harden them. However if you can frame it in terms of loyalty to future generations and the fertility of the earth/creation, not squandering the "farm" that nature/God has given as an inheritance, it is possible to create strong allies — if you can persuade them. If the economics of local sustainable energy makes sense, conservatives (with the exception of the zombie army of the captive corporate lobby) will naturally favor local self-reliance over centralized coporate grid dependance. Above all, it is important not to marry climate change mitigation to other left-wing/progressive causes or political color — that will trigger a whole host of active loyalty conflicts.
Conservatives are more likely to be persuaded by examples of credentialed conservatives (or the pope, or other leaders) than by scientific facts. Like the fact that the US Air Force was forced to include the basics of infra-red re-radiation in their heat-seeking missile technology to avoid being blinded. Or that Navy admirals are already anticipating on the likely effects. Most ordinary people find it difficult to evaluate reams of scientific facts against competing disinformation claims that are regularly fed them by the media. For conservatives it will be very important to establish which sources of competing claims in the public sphere are more trustworthy: To this end it is very important to give maximum coverage to how co-opted and error-prone most Anglo-Saxon disinformation "experts" are, and how little money or ulterior motive is actually driving frontier scientific inquiry by basically humble, ordinary, plodding science researchers who are being true/loyal to the facts thrust upon them. It is therefore incumbent on experts in the field to address this "political" divide continually, especially since most are naturally geared towards sticking to the scientific discourse and staying out of political frays and other such "BS".
-
John Hartz at 23:53 PM on 18 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
citizenschallenge: Your posts of yesterday have been deleted because the SkS website is not an appropriate forum for creating a political movement to prevent Donald Trump's "official" election by the US Electoral College. In that regard, your posts were "off topic" and therefore in violation of the SkS Comments Policy.
-
Alexandre at 21:24 PM on 18 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
What if the man actually IS is what he said he was all along?
I wonder if the voters considered the most obvious possibility.
Moderator Response:[JH] Please use bold font to highlight words, not all-caps.
-
nigelj at 09:17 AM on 18 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
Chriskoz @3, I agree that the media failed America. I live in another country, but I did follow the whole thing, and all I heard about was emails, sexual material, and nothing much on policies or climate change. This is pandering to the lowest common denominator and sensationalism. If you feed garbage into the public, garbage will come out in the way of their voting behaviour.
As to why Clinton lost, there are many reasons. However Clinton went into the election hobbled over the email thing. I don’t think she has done anything sinister, but it seems odd to me the Democrats would risk promoting her as a candidate when there were clearly plenty of other people.
Trump has a silver tongue like a clever used car salesman, and monopolised on some genuine discontent in America with free trade, and various elites, however Trumps policies are very poor quality. This sort of populist dogma will end in tears for everyone.
Regarding The EPA, it’s chilling that Trump has appointed such an obvious and strong climate sceptic and apparent libertarian as Myron Ebell. This is a scorched earth policy which shows Trump wants to neutralise the EPA as much as he can. There’s no ambiguity or softening here, he has declared war on science, or any science he doesn’t like.
Trump is surrounding himself entirely with yes men (and the odd token yes woman) and people of almost identical extreme right wing views. We now have severe group think. Trump is like a quasi dictator in charge of America, who through force of personality is bending everything to his will. Americas system has so called checks and balances, but the Republicans have all branches of government, and soon to have a dominance of their preferred Judges on the Supreme Court, so I dont see any checks or balances.
-
shoyemore at 08:56 AM on 18 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
chriskoz,
What was astonishing about that Muslim lady was her criticism that Obama's social programs were insufficient to her needs. She was seemingly not aware that Trump's Congressional Republicans plan to gut those same programs, and Trump made not a single promise to defend them. She could not afford Obamacare, but under Trump she will even lose that aspiration to have health insurance, as there will be no program at all - at least that is what he said during the campaign.
She seemed a very good example of a general electorate who vote from their intuitions or heuristics - fast thinking, in other words, instead of the slow thinking where the policies of both candidates are rationally evaluated. The last is the ideal of the electorate in a democracy, which exists nowhere.
-
John Hartz at 08:39 AM on 18 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
chriskoz:
Here's another perspective on why many voters flocked to Trump.
Trump’s anti-intelligentsia revolution, Op-ed by Leonid Bershidsky, Bloomberg View, Nov 14, 2016
-
Lionel A at 08:36 AM on 18 November 2016US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
Monckton has been writing silly things about John Abraham, amongst other things, below that Carbon Brief article.
-
chriskoz at 08:16 AM on 18 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
John's resentment of US president elect (especially his final conclusion, snipped here, that you find in the Guardian) is no dobt shared by all of us. I resent this president and his office more than John does, up to the point that I think he does not deserve to be called by name (T-word, is in my household a forbidden swear word, just like N-word) and I extend that practice to my posts on SkS.
But contrary to John, I have no illusion that the new president be "contrarian to the contrarians" only to be even more disappointed later. Instead I concentrate on the reasons behind such absurd election results: what happened to the US voters that they elected the most unimaginable clown that ever existed? This outcome did not come from "deplorables" (eg. white supremacits such as KKK), these are marginal poeple. The outcome came from average decent people but blind GOP supporters and from DEM supporters who turned away from Clinton for various reasons. Here is a confession from such an average voter that I cite after smh:
I'm a Muslim, a woman and an immigrant. I voted for Trump
This woman is from Muslim Reform Movement, and voted unreasonably, because he didn't like Clinton's dealings with Arab states and her lack of rejection of radical Islamism. Well, as muslim reformist, she should have listened to someone like Sam Harris, and unreasonably, she didn't but that aspect is not to be discussed on SkS. The important aspect is that she said she accepts climate science and is concerned about AGW but clearly voted irresponsibly against her own concerns here.
That should tell us that voters still place AGW very low in their priority list. Concerns like muslim reformation, lost emails, or other petty concerns are higher than the most important issue facing policy makers in this century. Where was the media whose job was tohighlight it during the campain? They concentrated on "pussy bus" instead. Although itself disqualifying the actors (including Bush) of that comedy from any public office, the media should cut the show short with the statement: such clowns are unable to grasp any serious issues like e.g. AGW.
The media failed us. Our job is to continue remind voters to sort their priorities according to the common good, not the petty concerns, in the next election to eliminate the root of the problem we're in.
-
nigelj at 08:02 AM on 18 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
I'm fast losing hope as well. Remember half the population have a limited education, and I would say they figure high in Trumps supporters, and you only need to look at the demographics and groups who supported him. And they are preyed on by ignoramuses like Rush Limbaugh, and will be exploited, fooled, and walked all over by people who actually weild power in Congress.
Trump and the Republicans are retreating into a giant intellectual, economic, and cultural bubble. They have become massively defensive, and are hunkering down. Yes globalisation has hurt some groups, but they are selecting exactly the wrong mindset and responses.
By flooding their ranks with such same minded people, like the appointment of Myron Ebell, they will generate the most destructive form of group think imaginable. Braver and smarter people ensure they have a range of advice.
Remember Trump is a business person, and is used to abrupt decisions and risk taking. This is part of the business ethic, but Trump does it on largely gut instinct and is taking a huge risk with the climate and also his protectionist trade policies.
The devil is in the detail, and I can see from his rhetoric that he is definitely incorrect on many details, crucially important details, so the sum of the parts will be a disaster. Trumps business history came close to bankruptcy several times. America, what have you done electing this guy?
-
nigelj at 07:28 AM on 18 November 2016What President Trump means for the future of energy and climate
Sauerj @4, everything you say makes plenty of sense. Part of me wants to take that optimistic view as well. However as you say lot of this issue depends on what the world says, and the pressure they put on America.
And it all depends on how people advise Donald Trump to do better on climate change. I would say do a lot of ego stroking and flattery because Trump has the sort of personality that responds to that. However add a bit of shouting at him as well, because he wont respect people who are timid. This guy has to be handled properly.
-
scaddenp at 06:52 AM on 18 November 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Lets not get into handwavy arguments. The relevant diagram is already on this thread here. Long term burial of carbon by plants etc takes place at rate about 0.2Pg C per year. Emissions from fossils fuels and land use change are about 9Pg C per year.
Not to mention the obvious fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, and that the isotopic composition of CO2 in atmosphere is consistent with addition coming from FF.
-
sailingfree at 02:10 AM on 18 November 2016Trump begins filling environmental posts with clowns
Upon reading and listening to the reasons that Trump's supporters give for backing him, I have lost all hope.
His supporters brains have been hijacked by Breitbart, Limaugh, and Fox. When things get bad, those "newscasters" will find a way to blame it all on Obama. Eight more years?
-
sauerj at 02:04 AM on 18 November 2016What President Trump means for the future of energy and climate
I am hopeful (naively) that with the GOP now fully 'on the hook' for the path forward that they will step back from their political obstructionism, re-calibrate their priorities and seriously evaluate the gamut of carbon cessation policy options so to unbiasly work out the best strategy for the most carbon emission reductions (nationally & globally), the least GDP-impact & the most equitable. An optium path that considers all 3 constraints (or more if required).
Before, acceptance of CC & then CC action (via executive order type policies) was a politized gridlock. That political excuse (that political football) has now been taken away from the GOP. Maybe those in their ranks who aspire to true conservatism (a true sense of sustainability) & a true sense of fair skepticism can persuade the rest of the GOP to step back, and re-calibrate its old ways. This re-calibration might make them think about CC strategy like a business problem, with constraints as follows: 1) Meet set carbon reduction goals, 2) Do so in the least economic burdensome & most equitable way as possible, and 3) Assist the global nations (especially the highest emitters) to do the same through technology sharing & funding (if necessary).
What is missing from this is the economic driving force to push toward the best solutions. Why? Because the cost of FF's today does not include the future cost of tomorrow's CC impacts. We are allowed to litter CO2 to the atmosphere for free. Because of this, wrong business decisions (based on cost vs return evaluations) are being made everyday all over the world by everyone. When the cost of energy is wrong, no one can escape these wrong decisions. Once the future cost of FF's is put into this price (on a ramped slope set so that technology development can keep up w/ demand), sustainable energies will start to florish, along with improvements in efficiency and reductions of discretionary & other wasteful consumption practices (those which provide no improvement to the quality of life). All fueled by the switch-over of investor capital, thus spurring organic entrepreneurship, technological ingenuity & industrial drive. Ultimately, the best, most sustainable solutions will become the most profitable, and therefore the most pursued.
Once the cost of unsustainability is included in the consumption of energy (increasly so until the use of FF's is eventually reduced to sustainable rates), then carbon cessation will start to take care of itself, on the best solution path possible. Of course, like today, business regulations will still be required to maintain just & equitable business practices (this is a piece of the policy negotiations but should not stalmate all movement toward significant and abtainable reductions in carbon emissions). A revenue-neutral carbon tax (fee & dividend, or an equitable offsetting of state sales tax, etc) is a good way to insert the future cost of FF's into their price. Once done (& ramped up at a rate that businesses would use in their capital plans), then business decisions will move away from today's wrong ones toward the right (sustainable) ones.
I am hopefully (again naively) that now that the GOP has the entire football and that some in the ranks are reasonable and with growing political & economic pressures from the rest of the world, that those in power will have a serious re-think, re-calibration on this whole issue. I am not sure that pressure from within their ranks is enough, but pressure from the rest of the world might cause them to totally re-think their strategy.
-
ubrew12 at 00:48 AM on 18 November 2016What President Trump means for the future of energy and climate
The globe affected by global warming is mostly not the United States. Yet one country has, more than any other, caused this calamity: the United States. I should think people around the World are getting royally steamed over America's repeated intransigence. I know my own country: if you're not hitting someone in his pocketbook, he can't hear you.
-
joepitts1 at 23:30 PM on 17 November 2016What President Trump means for the future of energy and climate
Mark has written an exceptionally insightful summary of where we stand. However, he does not address the impact of 4-years of inaction and back sliding on the part of the U.S. As I write this comment from SW Missouri at 7:30 AM on November 17 the outside temperature is 60 degrees F and the trees in my yard still have green leaves on them. Climate change is moving much more quickly than the models have predicted. Measurable action on the part of the U.S. must be implemented yesterday.
-
SirCharles at 18:30 PM on 17 November 2016US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
The International Energy Agency warned that reaching the ambitious targets set forth by last year’s global climate change accord would be next to impossible => Paris Climate Deal Is Too Weak to Meet Goals, Report Finds
-
SirCharles at 18:21 PM on 17 November 2016US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
@Eric Grimsrud
I have no time for wait and see.
Trump appointed Steve Bannon – the former chairman of Breitbart, the far-right media outlet that peddles conspiracy theories as news and advances white nationalism – as White House Chief Strategist and his Senior Counselor. Trump's top science advisor is climate change denier Myron Ebell. Mother Jones has an article here => Trump's Top Environmental Adviser Says Pesticides Aren't Bad for You
These are guys with a long history of science denial. Wait and see is not an option. Wait and see was the tenor when Hitler gained power some 80 years ago...
-
Glenn Tamblyn at 17:08 PM on 17 November 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
Mochan
Nope. More like 100's of millions of years ago. Plants removed vast amounts of carbon over huge timescales and it has been locked away ever since. Plants today work on a carbon cycle that doesn't include that sequestered ancient CO2. So adding this carbon from long ago is disrupting the balance of that system. -
Mochan at 15:55 PM on 17 November 2016Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
Sorry, I have two eyes, and the data clearly shows me it's closer to Scenario C, not Scenario B.
Moderator Response:[PS] It is not clear to me that you have read the article that carefully. Read the comment policy- you are risking sloganeering .Scenario B is about an emission scenario. Hansen considered what would happen for 3 different emission scenarios. What we actually emitted is closer to Scenario B, so should compare his prediction for scenario B to actual temperatures for B. His prediction is too high for reasons the articles discusses.
-
Mochan at 15:53 PM on 17 November 2016Breathing contributes to CO2 buildup
This rebuttal is missing something. It says that people arguing that breathing causes CO2 are missing the other half of the cycle.
By that very same logic, those who are saying we should cut down on fossil fuel use are missing the other half of the cycle — those plants that created the fossil fuels also took that CO2 out of the atmosphere hundreds of thousands of years ago. This is all a cycle and if it happens, it happens. You can't stop it.
-
chriskoz at 13:18 PM on 17 November 2016On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
scaddenp@14,
Indeed, note how the tip of the average green curve just "touches" the freezing blue line in summertime, which indicates how sensitive this region is changes in ice accumulation/melting in response to even small warming that shifts the green curve up and down. The simulation of such shifts (or rather changes in green curve in response to Milankovic forcings) can lead the explanation of iceage cycles. But with that model in mind, the departure of red line from green line in wintertime does not make any difference to arctic ice stability as long as it stays below freezing. The relevant summertime part or red curve follows green curve closely. So I don't understand what's a big buzz in this mistery, policy violating bozzza@112 post.
And above all, I don't understande how this graph is relevant to the topic at hand about demographic of climate science acceptance in America.
-
scaddenp at 05:59 AM on 17 November 2016On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
I am pretty sure it is Arctic temperatures north of 80N. See here.
-
JWRebel at 05:55 AM on 17 November 2016What President Trump means for the future of energy and climate
Trump may be susceptible to the idea that the US is going to lose its role as a leader in emergent technologies, such as solar and renewables. His views on climate amount to a few goofy one-offs ("Where is global warming when you need it" –- everybody in Russia and Canada has said that sometime in their life) and ignorance: He thinks that if the weather breaks a record that was last set in 1896 it proves that there is nothing novel about weather extremes (which is true — but not germane). If not completely beholden to fossil fuel interests or campaign promises there is some hope for a learning curve if he runs into advisors with an educational streak. He's also likely to be in for a surprise when calculating how many "hundreds of billions" can actually be squeezed from subsidies (and coal substitution). Further hope can be garnered from the fact that he is likely to favor States' and local autonomy, which means a lot of initiatives will carry on despite new policy. Just saying, the cause has not yet been completely lost.
-
rkrolph at 05:13 AM on 17 November 2016On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
The chart @12 needs some explanation. As in, what is it?
-
shastatodd at 04:38 AM on 17 November 2016US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
"But given Trump’s comments on the campaign trail, the US’s recent reputation under Barack Obama as a nation serious about tackling climate change now looks to be in peril."
im sorry, but donald trump does not dicate my energy consuption/ carbon footprint choices. -
One Planet Only Forever at 04:29 AM on 17 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
Trump's plans for coal is likely to stop any transition of existing coal burners in the US and motivate utilities to maximize their use by ending laws and enforcement that make coal burning less profitable. However, his main plan would likely be to maximize exports of coal and us US influence to keep buyers of US coal from reducing their burning-blaming them and excusing the US.
Bottom line is Trump is bottom line popularity and profit guy who has a history of not caring how popularity gets drummed up or how unsustainable or damaging a pursuit of profit is understood to be. He has proven that popularity for nationalism can override any better understanding that what is being promoted will not advance humanity to a lasting better future. Tragically in Germany White Nationalists were twice proven to respond even more as the damaging absurdity of the Weimar and Nazi Regimes claims were ramped up.
-
Lionel A at 01:37 AM on 17 November 2016US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
Visiting the original article at Carbon Brief I note that somebody using the name 'monckton' has opened the comments batting with long debunked disinformation for which his Lordship is so well known.
-
bozzza at 20:24 PM on 16 November 2016On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
Enough, it's time to do something!
Moderator Response:[RH] Adjusted image size. Please keep image limited to 500px.
-
John Hartz at 11:53 AM on 16 November 2016US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
nigelj: You state:
Somebody needs to talk to Trump about climate change, but it needs to be kept to just a few key points. He will not have time for a massive lecture.
According to the following article, President Barak Obama is doing just that.
Here's how Obama's trying to persuade Trump not to abandon the Paris climate deal by Brad Plumer, Energy & Environment, Vox, Nov 15, 2016
-
nigelj at 08:11 AM on 16 November 2016US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
Trump does indeed have a history of unusually flexible views on most things. It all makes Trump hard to predict.
Somebody needs to talk to Trump about climate change, but it needs to be kept to just a few key points. He will not have time for a massive lecture.
Two main things convinced me fossil fuels are causing global warming. Firstly a graph showed that over the warming period since 1975,solar irradiance has been falling slightly. Secondly the warming is stronger and increasing more at night which suggests an increasing greenhouse effect. I don't have a physics degree, but I could easily relate to these issues.
-
nigelj at 07:19 AM on 16 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
Michael Sweet @ 12, I didn't realise there was such a strong consensus on global warming in the 1960s, but I accept your evidence.
I was really just reacting to Driving By. He made an initial claim that warnings about warming made in the 1960s were ignored by the Democrats, as they were more interested in their progressive agenda. This annoyed me.
But it shows an important point. Both Republicans and Democrats have been in denial about climate change at various times. The elite become tied up in their own narrow agendas, whatever they may be.
-
perseus at 05:15 AM on 16 November 2016On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
Trump won in areas with less educated, older, whiter populations with fewer immigrants.
It was exactly the same with Brexit in the UK. No wonder he's such buddies with Nigel Farage.
Interestingly UKIP, the neo-fascist party he used to head, obtained only one Member of Parliament (one MP is allocated per seat or region) out of 650 in the last general election despite receiving 13% of the vote (he has never won a seat). This is due to their votes being diluted across many regions and MPs being elected by a first past the post voting system in each region. The Greens only have one MP for the same reason.
In contrast, the Scottish Nationalists obtained 56 seats with only 8.6% of the popular vote, because their vote is concentrated enough in Scotland to overcome the other parties contesting those seats.
-
william5331 at 05:02 AM on 16 November 2016US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
On the bright side, what politician in the rest of the world wants to be associated with Trump in the eyes of his support. Imagine some politician making some sceptical comment about climate change and the next question by a reporter. "Are we to understand Mr Minister", he asks, "that you agree with President Trump". Perhaps the law of unexpected consequensis will act in our favor for a change.
-
Eric Grimsrud at 03:07 AM on 16 November 2016US election: Climate scientists react to Donald Trump’s victory
In spite of the more pessimistic view most of us climate scientists now have, there is, nevertheless, the possibility that President-elect Trump will change many of his views abruptly, even before he becomes President Trump. This thought is consistent with Trump’s behavior in the past. He is a self-absorbed operator who doesn’t think he owes anything to anyone. Thus, when he gets into the oval office next January, I doubt that he will feel a strong obligation to honor any of the commitments he has made to others so far. Donald Trump is clearly not a stupid person himself - he has simply shown himself to be a master at getting the votes of those who are. He might more appropriately be labelled an uneducated person. As unlikely as this somewhat more progressive view of Trump might be, there’s no harm in crossing one’s fingers and trying very hard to educate him on the issue of climate change. Of all of the issues on the table, only this one needs to be addressed immediately. All of the others can be addressed and solved in due or even overdue time – if our life sustaining physical environment doesn’t slip away. Who knows – maybe Trump will also start learning a bit about the Father of his party and be inspired by how Lincoln saved the United States of America in the nick of time. The fact that he has so little regard for what’s left of today’s Republican Party is encouraging.
-
BBHY at 23:27 PM on 15 November 2016On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
I tried to warn people that Clinton was trying to buck a strong hitorical trend and her chances were slim.
America very rarely elects two different Democratic presidents back-to-back. Exceptions since WWII are when Johnson followed JFK, but JFK had died in office so LBJ was able to run as an incumbent. Incumbents have an significant advantage in our elections; that's why we have the 22nd Amendment, and why Senators and Congressmen with low approval ratings stay in office for decades. The same thing happened when Truman followed FDR, he was able to run as an incumbent after FDR died in office.
To find an example that didn't involve the advantage of incumbency you have to go back over 150 years, to James Buchanon followed Franklin Pierce in the election of 1856. So this is a very strong historical trend that is extremely hard to break. Still, I thought Clinton had a chance because Trump was so bad.
What does this have to do with Climate Change, and am I about to get flagged for being off-topic? The point is, we can't wait for the perfect president, the perfect congress, or the perfect political climate. It is up to us, the people, to mobilize and move forward on fighting climate change. Where the people lead, the politicians will follow. (or "Lead from the rear" as someone put it.)
One small consulation, Trump should be the absolute last of the climate denier presidents. Sea level rise is/has accelerated and in another 8 years, (maybe only four, but don't count on it), millions of people who don't now beleive in climate change will be changing their minds. Yes, we will be in very bad shape by then, really we already are just that many people can't/won't see it.
-
Haze at 23:26 PM on 15 November 2016On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
Thank you for so effectively but, I suspect, unintentionally, reinforcing my point.
-
DrivingBy at 22:15 PM on 15 November 2016On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
"Perhaps a little less derision and outright snobbery..."
Quite so. Artisinal, focus group tested, artfully concealed derision and snobbery will be right up. Would you like seltzer with that?
-
michael sweet at 20:46 PM on 15 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
Nigelj,
The report was from the National Academy of Science not "a couple of scientists". They warned strongly that AGW would be a big problem in the future. It reported the consensus of scientists at the time.
It has been over 50 years since that reort was delivered to the President. Unfortunately, we are making the same argument now.
-
nigelj at 17:23 PM on 15 November 20162016 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #46
Driving by @9, yes a couple of scientists in the 1960s predicted global warming but there was no consensus in the science community. Maybe there should have been.
Trump is possibly a pragmatist. So am I, but his changeability is so large it's not normal
-
Imran520 at 16:55 PM on 15 November 2016On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
The urban/rural divide was the third-strongest determining factor in the presidential election. Clinton won urban voters by 24 points; Trump won rural voters by 28 points. In many cases, cities are leading the way in taking action to curb global warming.
http://cnn.mobiletv.com.pk/
-
Art Vandelay at 11:39 AM on 15 November 2016On Trump and climate, America is split in two by these demographics
Trump fell slightly short of winning the popular vote but the election result itself still shows that 'climate change' as an issue is less important than other social and economic issues of today, as far as Americans are concerned.
My gut feeling is that Trump will be a 4 year President and will have little if any effect on global climate hange mitigation efforts.
Prev 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 Next
