Open Letter from Scientists to President-Elect Trump on Climate Change

@bmanva: The point of the letter is to illustrate the near unanimous scientific backing of the human impact on climate change.

And, as it pertains to economists, from what I can see they were more focused on choosing sides during the election (that link contains 670 economists and around 20 Nobel laureates)

Bingo. If the evidence and experts agreed that it it isn't an issue, then that's great. Everything else being equal, drill baby drill.

It's the same reason I don't follow the organic craze, non-GMO craze, or the anti-vaxxer insanity. The moment I see significant evidence to their validity, then I'll reevaluate my position on them.

Not to mention homeopathy and astrology (both of which can find support by government officials in first world countries).

With climate change. Not only do the experts say its wrong, but they can outright prove why it is harmful. And plenty of european countries have shown that you can transition from fossil fuels at a decent rate while still maintaining economic growth.

@Maroxad: If Norway lost oil we would have about 7 years left I guess. Our politicians for the last 15-20 years (especially the last decade) have had absolutely no wish to actually make things easier in order for the public services to save money. Even the current one which is all about making things less bureaucratic fails at that.

@bmanva:Yup... I do hate that Norway's emission does not reflect how much oil we produce. There is a couple of things that should be added (at least in Norway's case, but I am sure many other countries should do the same) I think when we talk about how much CO2 we emit and what not. Oil. There would be huge ranges in the estimates I think, but give a number if all of it was turned into fuel for vehicles. How much GHG would that be. Or if it is turned into other things. It's perhaps less if turned into plastic. I don't know.

Secondly what our consumption(I dare say consumption when people are throwing away unused clothes with the pricetag still on it) of clothes actually emit. Well production of it technically.

Plastics have their own issue in that they do not break down into an organic component like a paper or plant based product does. Plastic will still be around in some form even after humans are gone. It is having a detrimental effect on wildlife and sea life right now. While I am not a fan of CNN, I find this to be credible due to past articles about Midway. Plastic Island, How our throwaway culture is turning paradise into a graveyard is a good article about the effects plastic is having on the planet and don't forget, plastics are a petroleum based product..

Of course you'd say that. You have the brainpan of a stage coach tilter.

Lol, phrenology :P

@mattbbpl said:

@Maroxad said:

@mattbbpl said:

@hillelslovak said:

@Solaryellow said:

How would you react if numerous educated professionals sent him a letter contrary to climate change?

I, like most non delusional sociopaths, would listen to the experts, and not a bunch of pastors, and dipshits who are wrong about everything they speak of. If his little simulation is threatened by the facts, he throws out the facts, and attempts to discredit those speaking of them.

Bingo. If the evidence and experts agreed that it it isn't an issue, then that's great. Everything else being equal, drill baby drill.

It's the same reason I don't follow the organic craze, non-GMO craze, or the anti-vaxxer insanity. The moment I see significant evidence to their validity, then I'll reevaluate my position on them.

Not to mention homeopathy and astrology (both of which can find support by government officials in first world countries).

With climate change. Not only do the experts say its wrong, but they can outright prove why it is harmful. And plenty of european countries have shown that you can transition from fossil fuels at a decent rate while still maintaining economic growth.

Of course you'd say that. You have the brainpan of a stage coach tilter.

Lol, phrenology.

Since the US politics have gotten rather dull as of late. I went back to trolling woo-peddlers and pseudoscience promoters. Creationists, Climate Change denialists, anti vaxxers and the likes. But I havent encountered anyone who believes in phrenology... thankfully.

@mattbbpl said:

@Maroxad said:

@mattbbpl said:

@hillelslovak said:

@Solaryellow said:

How would you react if numerous educated professionals sent him a letter contrary to climate change?

I, like most non delusional sociopaths, would listen to the experts, and not a bunch of pastors, and dipshits who are wrong about everything they speak of. If his little simulation is threatened by the facts, he throws out the facts, and attempts to discredit those speaking of them.

Bingo. If the evidence and experts agreed that it it isn't an issue, then that's great. Everything else being equal, drill baby drill.

It's the same reason I don't follow the organic craze, non-GMO craze, or the anti-vaxxer insanity. The moment I see significant evidence to their validity, then I'll reevaluate my position on them.

Not to mention homeopathy and astrology (both of which can find support by government officials in first world countries).

With climate change. Not only do the experts say its wrong, but they can outright prove why it is harmful. And plenty of european countries have shown that you can transition from fossil fuels at a decent rate while still maintaining economic growth.

Of course you'd say that. You have the brainpan of a stage coach tilter.

Awesome. Incredible. Awesome again.