Trump goes full clown on Climate Denial?

Is he saying "Wow!" as in what he just quoted was absolutely insane in a bad way? Or "Wow!" as in he supports it and agrees?

ROFL that guy he quoted "and in fact carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life." WHAT!?

Republicans are carbon-dioxide based?

****. Now it all makes sense.

Do not shake before opening.

He quoted someone with an opinion. So what? Trump may have an opinion on it but left it open. So what? It's not like every single person on the internet isn't posting their opinions about something all day, every day. If one agrees, someone else disagrees and vice versa...so what? Opinions are all I see all day long and throughout my 42 years of people with opinions, not a single one has made a damn relevance in my life.

There's a very elementary factual error in the tweet. Read it again.

This has nothing to do with opinion.

Opinion? He quoted a very factually inaccurate statement.

He does this often when it comes to climate change, or outright says false stuff himself.

People here still don't think he's a denier, which is funny.

Which is kind of funny since aliens are usually depicted as able to only breathe carbon-dioxide.

It's kind of obvious what he was trying to say though.

which is what?

google the carbon cycle.

Is it possible to even imagine a man less qualified to make decisions on any modern issue than Donald Trump?

i'm aware of what it is. But it's a weird thing to try to say, and definitely not a leap the president is going to make. Most people would just say carbon is the building block of life. It just seems like a silly thing to throw out there and try to deny climate change

CO2 and Carbon are not the same. CO2 has carbon in it, but so does cyanide.

Carbon is the basis for all life. That has very little to do with the carbon cycle (photosynthesis of CO2 is only one method of carbon uptake). This guy is just showing how clueless he is about the subject by conflating the two, and that's why we're making fun of him.

Well....to be fair, you can take that tweet in any direction. But given Trumps past statements on the issue, you can safely assume what his motives for posting that quote are....

Probably conflating the two on purpose, to give the idea there's nothing wrong with all this CO2.

Wonder why? I found this with a quick Google:

Moore has worked for the mining industry, the logging industry, PVC manufacturers, the nuclear industry, and in defense of biotechnology.

Why does it always seem to come back to that? Hmmm....

yeah, and also Greenpeace says he wasn't a founder. Seems after he left greenpeace he completely switched his views

CO2 goes in CO2 comes out. I understand what he's trying to say in that regard. His next conclusion would be that this means CO2 isn't a pollutant. Obviously this is wrong.

Except someone like the president of the U.S., whose opinions hold direct relevance on your any everyone else's lives when he bases policies upon them. Unfortunately for us, Trump accepts any opinion that conforms to his already preconceived delusions of reality, and not those of which evidence and fact support.

You're trying to give him more credit than he deserves. It's obfuscation.

I blame Tim Apple for all of this.

With Trump we can live longer and better economically. With something like Cortez Green New Deal we will be collapsed way before 2030. Why? First her lunatic plan would collapse the virus that is the global economy, second if the US and other important countries around the world follow her green plan the planet will heat up even faster do to global dimming. So basically you guys can call Trump dumb, yet i take him over SJW open borders lets kill the economy lunatic demonrats controlled by globalist who are actually really smart and know industrial civilization will collapse before 2050.

I LOL'd pretty hard at this.

I mean. There is weather all around the globe. That part is correct. :P

lol CO2 is the base of all life (wrong), therefore all levels of it are good! (Super wrong)

Have this asshole fill up a chamber with 10% CO2 per volume and lock himself inside, see how much 'life' it gives to him.

The USA climate denial is having an impact on European national decision making around climate change. There are elections in my country soon and during the TV debate one of the strongest arguments against spending any money on chipping away at CO2 emission was that the USA, China, etc. are doing **** all and we'll end up as the suckers who wasted money on something that can't be saved anyway.

I disagree with that notion. I think we ought to take responsibility towards our children, and do our best regardless of whether the big countries do as well. We don't control the big countries so, there is no guarantee that they will help regardless of what they say they'll do. You're never going to have a guarantee. But I just want to make it clear that this uncertainty surrounding climate change direction in the USA, may have an impact on the decisions made in European countries.

If I understand correctly, an overwhelming majority of climatologists are in agreement that CO2 emissions are one of the ways we can impact climate change, and that climate change is likely to become disastrous for future human generations? If that is the case, I don't think any country should take the risk of not working towards lowering CO2 emissions. Even though having a number of scientists say something does not guarantee they have it right, are we seriously aiming to risk that much, especially for future generations, to get a financial leg up on our 'competing' nations? That sounds foolish to me. If this turns out to all be bullshit, then we can have a good laugh about it in 20 years. But for now I think we should take the threat seriously.

Welcome to the clown world.

Donald Trump is like a reddit user who somehow became President. It's like a wacky 1980's comedy movie, but real.

Trump is the epitome of a shitposter. I'm amazed that a 70-year-old-something man acts like the typical 15 year old online troll.

I'll give him some credit, alot of these celebs people follow on Twitter aren't really them but some PR person using their account. creating a fake image, heavily vetted and thought out.

Trump just shuts his eyes and bangs the keyboard, what a trooper.

oh, YATHINK?

Climate change is a wildly overblown phenomenon and promoted as such for the government to impose ‘carbon’ taxes as a new revenue stream. Seriously, how is paying higher taxes going to combat climate change? In counties that barely contribute to it while China and India exist?

Stop being naive.

But they are stating it doesn't exist or is not made worse by man.

Stop moving the goal post.

awww.

you tried so hard to make a post that made sense.

here's a cookie and some warm milk.

There is no real science to back up the "crisis" part of the climate change issue. They haven't really had any real accurate models or predictions about what could happen. Had they been right we would have already been in a runaway green house effect but turns out.. there is a lot of mitigating factors that they didn't consider. Iceland was able to start replanting forests, so there have been unexpected benefits to climate change. Turns out reforestation is also a great way to help curve climate change, china planted something like 60,000 trees...

Not to mention there is no real energy solution for it. Even renewable en energy won't work, because what they save in carbon emissions they take up in space which is heavily destructive to the environment any way. Nuclear would work but democrats hate that too.

The only short term fix is basically live like people did 300 years ago... or kill like two thirds of all humans so we don't need to heat as many homes.

If people actually wanted to help the planet.. well find a group and figure out what you'd need and where you can plant some trees and get started. Otherwise any one suggesting that the government needs to do something basically only cares enough about the issue to try to get some social credit.

hahahahahahaha lol

Thats some awesome critique.

This is all false. I'll post 2,000 pages of peer reviewed science:

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf

How else does someone respond to pure unadulterated bullsh*t? Climate change is a fact. We are (as humans) adding to it, is a fact. Your post is nonsense and deserves nothing but ridicule. No honest conversation can be had until we realize this.

None of these suggest a "crisis", sure its going to be disruptive. But trying to stop it by reducing carbon emission can likely cause a bigger crisis...

Its also based mostly on models which may or may not be accurate... only time will tell if they are. And so far they have not been accurate. A lot of this is speculation. There are different models and data from the skeptics side.. basically there is just to much uncertainty.

Where did I say climate change didn't exist or wasn't being exasperated by humans with carbon emissions? Who the **** are you responding to?

Your post should be ridiculed because it shows a serious lack of reading comprehension.

This paragraph is mostly lies.

1. Climate models are not as inaccurate as you claim. There isn't that much data from skeptics, a vast majority of papers on AGW/CC state both are real and negative.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jun/25/30-years-later-deniers-are-still-lying-about-hansens-amazing-global-warming-prediction

2. It's not all based off of climate models. Neither is all of NASA's evidence. Also please feel free to objectively refute my 2 links with your own peer reviewed data by quoting portions of those reports and specifically telling me what is incorrect.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

AGW and CC are real. Both are negative. Trump and the clown he quoted are wrong on this.

awwww... you posted nothing relevant. Well what can one expect from someone who is clueless. Do you even know about the blue ocean event? Do you know about ocean acidification? Oh my... go hit that google and do some research, maybe one day you can say something.

Another climate change post with thee same thread CO2 causes climate change and is man made. This is bsed on computer models not empirical data.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/03/global_cooling_the_real_climate_threat.html

The predictions are basically based off of speculation and models. The predictions whats not scientifically accurate.

The hockypuck data they are showing on the main screen has a lot of uncertainty, its not a very accurate depiction of the last 900 years. And there is contradicting data to nasa's conclusion...

And beyond that, what science is there in predictions of what the temperature might mean?

1. What are you talking about. You're objectively wrong on this issue. Most climate models have been good,

Conclusion

Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.

Climate models have already predicted many of the phenomena for which we now have empirical evidence. Climate models form a reliable guide to potential climate change.

Mainstream climate models have also accurately projected global surface temperaturechanges. Climate contrarians have not.

You couldn't refute any of the links I have given. AGW and CC are real and negative.

2. Climate Models aren't the only evidence.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

3. The 2,000 page report says you are wrong. Can you counter it directly with peer reviewed work?

Oh, please. Everyone has seen the 'move the goal post' shtick. You TOTALLY believe in climate change, just not the conclusions and implications that the same scientists arrive at though.

You've already linked to a site that calls global warming a hoax. Way to blow your cover in a couple posts.

Of course not, they've already linked to a site that says they're 'dedicated to fighting the global warming hoax'. It's a pointless conversation to have with a liar.

Your links aren't scientific fact to begin with. Some of the peer review is criticism... and there is a lot of it. Like biased official review panel, cherry picking data, or accuracy of some measurements like the hockey puck which is used everywhere, which is used front in center on your current link.

The fact is a couple of studies doesn't equate to scientific fact.

Not to mention the implications of what is being said is pure speculation, 97% of climate scientists agree we are having an affect on climate change. The implications longterm are largely still out for debate. The accuracy for how much humans affect is still out for debate.

I mean it projects that unmitigated climate change would cause the GDP 10 percent lower... well what solution wouldn't also cause the GDP to take a hit. We'd literally have to extensively dial back fossil fuel usage which everyone depends on a lot. Even renewable energy just isn't capable of being a good alternative being unreliable and extremely destructive to the environment.

So not only is there no scientific facts about the implication of the warming, there are also no solutions that aren't just as if not more harmful and disruptive...