Trump goes full clown on Climate Denial?

The 2,000 pages I linked does contain facts though. Why lie?

A couple? Dude, 1,000s. Almost all studies on climate change show this......

That's not what Donald and several of his GOP goons are arguing. They are saying AGW doesn't exist, and at times stating modern climate change is nothing and has no effect.

These are false statements. Donny is wrong on this subject. Most Republicans are wrong on this subject.

I didn't say that it didn't contain facts. I said the crisis is manufactured. We aren't talking in terms of scientific fact when we talk about global warming or the affects of it. That is entirely speculation based and not all models are consistent. Not all the data is consistent or have they high degree of uncertainty. So the conclusion those studies produce aren't fact and are very much up to for debate. Which you clearly don't listen to the opposing side much, just hand waive it away as climate denial... Just because someone has facts doesn't mean there is going to be a reliable confidence in a conclusion.

And even if it was 100% true, the second point I made is much more important. There is nothing we can do that won't have just as big of an impact on our GDP/infrastructure, because there is no magic replacement for fossil fuels.

That's a straw-man argument. Trump and Co. are saying it's fake or not negative at all. Period. Not that it's merely not a high crisis.

Uhh....it says high certainty and high confidence in that report.

None of it is speculation.

Why are you lying. Refute the peer reviewed report, directly.

Its not a straw man argument. I'm not trump. But essentially is just as fake as it is real. Just because it says it has high certainty doesn't mean it does... Hell some of the critiques on this stuff is there aren't enough experts to appropriately review the studies. Just because something is peer reviewed doesn't mean its scientific fact.

Yes it is speculation. Educated sure.. I provided two links that show some of the peer review criticizing data available for reports like this because the accuracy of data is part of what the debate is about. The only thing that is conceivable scientific fact is carbon emissions cause climate change. Everything beyond that is debatable.

Both AGW and CC are real, and negative. A significant amount of peer reviewed data shows this. Nearly the entire scientific field of climatology and 13 federal agencies agree with this.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/

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

Feel free to quote passages and directly disprove them with peer reviewed citation.

Thats incorrect. The entire or nearly entire scientific community does not agree with this. Do you have anything backing up that? Where are all the studies reproducing these projected environmental impacts as well? Do you not understand a couple studies isn't proof of anything? Especially if they are largely based on the same critical evidence that may be flawed and being criticized by a good sized portion of the community.

There is also no solution being presented so again, the more important aspect is what can we do about it if anything. The answer is basically come up with an new magic energy source, throw ourselves into the middle ages and don't use fossil fuels... or kill most of the people on the planet so the scale of our activity is much lower.

The scale of human activity will impact the environment regardless of what we do. The projections of climate change are in fact speculation.

You're just repeating the same lies over and over again while I've provided literally 100s of peer reviewed studies and 2,000 page report by 13 federal agencies.

You're done here.

No you haven't... have you read any of those studies? Give me 3 studies that back up the 10% lower GDP estimate... There are plenty of studies showing the earths climate is changing. But that's not what we are talking about.

Do you actually understand what we are talking about? Whether or not this is a crisis or not. Or the difference between the data collected, a scientific fact, and a scientific theory?

That's exactly what I'm talking about though. You came in with a straw-man. Trump and Co. are straight up denying the basics.

No I didn't come in with a straw man. Look at my first post. I literally stated that the crisis is manufactured and there is no real evidence to back that up. So we are talking about the validity to the claim that climate change is a crisis. So is trump for the most part.

So I guess you admit your moving the goal post onme. The person you called wrong. Which is not trump. This is basic concepts... if you can't get a conversation right you probably aren't capable of understanding complex reports like the ones you keep linking.

No. Trump was not correct for "the most part". The quote he posted was incorrect. AGW and CC being real are labeled threats by 13 federal agencies and the CIA. There being "Weather and climate all around the world" part was dismissive trash, and his final part about CO2 was nonsensical fiction.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30012019/worldwide-threat-assessment-climate-change-intelligence-agencies-national-security

No. I understand the fact that AGW and CC are real, and negative. As stated in that report. You're the one lying about climate models and number of studies. Lmao "a couple of". Meanwhile my links must have cited over 300.

Trump approvingly tweets quote expressing skepticism about climate change

Trump has long cast doubt on the existence and effects of climate change. The president late last year downplayed a government report on the subject, telling reporters that he doesn't believe its warnings about the economic impacts of climate change.

He has previously suggested it's a hoax invented by the Chinese and has cited winter storms to push back on the idea of global warming.

Scientists have noted that there is a difference between weather and climate and that cold weather does not dispel the existence of long-term climate change. NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association said 2018 was the fourth-hottest year on record by average temperature.

This really is a losing debate for the GOP.

Purely debate the economy behind it. Not if it's real or not.

@zaryia: Do you even read what your write?

Trump approvingly tweets quote expressing skepticism about climate change

Trump has long cast doubt on the existence and effects of climate change. The president late last year downplayed a government report on the subject, telling reporters that he doesn't believe its warnings about the economic impacts of climate change.

There is distinctly different concepts here. The vast majority, including the president understand climate change is a thing. The debate and the lack of consensus isn't about whether or not we are having an affect on climate change, its the extent of our impact, potential cost, and solutions...

Your making a straw man that you either believe in climate change or your a denier. Or your just too stupid to understand the distinctions being made on both sides.

We've been running around in circles because you clearly can't or won't make distinctions, and you can't or won't respond in good faith.

Oof. You're so bad at this. Where to begin.

1. You forgot about the underlined part. Trump does doubt the existence of it, that is the issue. There are several examples of this. He also regularly confuses weather for climate. I'll go into detail later.

The article you just linked also states

"He has previously suggested it's a hoax invented by the Chinese and has cited winter storms to push back on the idea of global warming.

Scientists have noted that there is a difference between weather and climate and that cold weather does not dispel the existence of long-term climate change. NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association said 2018 was the fourth-hottest year on record by average temperature."

2. He's wrong. There is no data to suggest the economic impacts in the 13 federal agency report is incorrect. He's always wrong on climate change issues. He's a liar or inaccurate on this issue.

This is a wrong.

1. Republicans in general: https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx

Only 41% of Republicans think it has had an effect, which is objectively wrong. Only 40% think it is caused by Humans at all, which is objectively wrong.

2. President Trump does not appear to believe it is what the Climate Scientists state what it is. He thinks it is part of a regular cycle, and does not think it has anything to do with man. He also confuses it for weather.

“As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it — not nearly like it is.”

"I think something’s happening. Something’s changing and it’ll change back again. I don’t think it’s a hoax, I think there’s probably a difference."

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

"In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!"

I mean this stuff is just flat our WRONG going by the reports he is talking about.

The OP is talking about 2 clear cut climate deniers. I'm glad you want to go off topic and talk about the economic impacts, but I'm not discussing those in this thread.

Also please don't talk about stupidity after stating the 2,000 page federal report was not factual, thought all models were inaccurate even though most are on the accurate side, linked a dodgy heartland institute youtube video do debunk an entire field of science, and thought the report only contained a handful of studies when it contained hundreds.

I know. And I'm telling you how most of your posts have nothing to do with the specific thread topic, and that Trump and the guy he quoted are objectively wrong.

Simple enough. Right?

1. It's not speculation. If so, provide citation proving it is.

2. Please quote the potential faulty data contained in the report. Prove with citation it is faulty.

3. High degree of uncertainty? Citation? A majority of their claims state "very high confidence" to "high confidence. See the beginning of each chapter section.

I will refer to the 2,000 page 13 federal agency report until you can give me more than opinion. I need facts directly refuting it.

Actually the field of climatology knows quite a bit. Also models have been fairly accurate. As I showed.

Actually you didn't. Go back and read your own statements. You directly talked to me and my point and said it was wrong. And we've been having a discussion on that except you keep trying to argue against me with anti trump/gop bullshit witch doesn't make sense in the context of your refutation of what I said.

1. It's not speculation.

2. Please quote the potential faulty data contained in the report.

3. A majority of their claims state "very high confidence" to "high confidence. See the beginning of each chapter section.

I will refer to the 2,000 page 13 federal agency report until you can give me more than opinion. I need facts directly refuting it.

The crisis is in fact speculation. The facts they gathered do not say "crisis". The do not suggest future impact. There are no such thing as facts in future prediction... its technically incorrect to consider the report 100% factual.

The level of certainty or accuracy of those predictions depend on the amount of accuracy and coverage of the data to give an accurate perception.

I already posted a really really good critique of a widely used graph of the last 100 years to demonstrate climate change.

This is bullshit. Nearly an entire field of science is not just guessing here.

A field of science in its infancy trying to gather data on the entire planet and model incredibly complicated and interconnected systems. And the most discussion on this is being made by journalists and a mechanical engineer and their main way of defending their ideas is attacking people.

You can't be serious in thinking that any one has 100% clarity on the issues of climate change. Or if its even all negative. Not only is there inconsistent data on warming based on satellites... there is also a net greening of the entire planet thanks to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The fact is there is validity in skepticism... just on any level. All science is suppose to hold up to scrutiny and if you have to basically call people climate deniers than your not letting the facts stand on their own. Mostly likely because real scrutiny of them doesn't hold up. I'll say it again, trump is not entirely wrong. Although he is terrible at expressing his thoughts.

Here's a peer reviewed study heavily criticizing the satellite data.

The thing about climate change is that we're all fukd on that front. We also fukd the earth. And we also fukd the oceans with plastics, a derivative of fossil fuels. Nowhere to run at this point.

I have a feeling the US and the rest of the world will start to use geo engineering to try and solve the issues BUT...this would mean all countries would have to agree on such action, and to be honest even in the US, there would be massive lawsuits all over the place if such a course of action was even considered. The supreme Court which is strongly conservative would also likely not allow such a thing either, especially in a very public case. You have these foolish conservatives who are strongly against vaccines and other modern tech and don't believe in climate change either. Not sure how willing they would be to allow government to pump stuff into our air. So with that said, geo engineering is possibly a 50/50 at this point. The question remains on whether drought, record heat waves, rising sea levels, mass migrations etc will affect that decison

@waahahah:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/climatology-fraud-global-warming/

Your paper is bogus. It was fact checked and found to be false. More over it's funded by fossil fuel industry, has connections to the heartland. It wasn't peer reviewed either, it was published not on a journal but on a WordPress blog.

Man you cons write books but you're dumb as bricks. It's so easy to debunk your garbage in 30 seconds with Google.

But you didn't debunk it. You posted an article on snopes.. the wonderful scientific? outlet. So I shouldn't trust a couple of scientists at MIT one of the premier research institutions in america. Or should I trust snopes?

Also there were similar criticisms on vol 1 of the national climate assessment. They picked a biased set of 11 reviewers and violated the OMB's rules. You know a government body that depends on funding and this climate crisis existing producing a study.

The fact is there is a lot of infered data to try to complete a full perception of the planet.

#ConfirmationBias

Its weird when confirmation bias confirms nothing!

Science doesn't exist without skepticism. Especially with something as new as climate science where 99% of the data has been collected using different methods/tech and trying to reconstruct past climates to compare our current situation to see if its normal or not.

That was me simply picking out sections of your off-topic rant that were objectively wrong. I ignored your economic debate in this thread, because that's not what this thread is about. I'm talking about pure and simple denial, from Trump and his Goons.

Here is an example,

This is wrong. The models have been fairly accurate for the most part. The report claims high confidence to very high confidence in most facets.

This is wrong. There were 100s of peer reviewed studies in the report (and 1,000s in general).

1. That is not peer reviewed. Rofl.

2. It has been fact checked. https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/we-fact-checked-a-bogus-study-on-global-temperature-thats-misleading-readers

WOW WOW WOW, Pump your breaks!

So you'll trust a singular discredited non-peer-reviewed wordpress document over 90% of the experts in this field? Over 10,000s of actual peer reviewed papers on this topic? More than 13 federal agencies? More than NASA? More than than AMS? More than the ACS?

Cult member?

It's easy to debunk.

Embarrassing Error # 1:

The authors erroneously claim that the NASA, NOAA, and Hadley CRU global average surface temperature records all produce the same results simply because they use many of the same land-based weather stations as sources.

These datasets incorporate information from thousands of individual weather stations, ocean measurements and satellite data. Each of these datasets incorporate as many high-quality temperature data sources as possible, including many in common. Then, each dataset is constructed and analyzed using different methods. Why? Because this is what scientists do to be confident about their results. Scientists test and re-test datasets to see if – using different methods and approaches – they get the same results as their colleagues working independently. I would not want to fly in a plane that had only been inspected once – would you?

Embarrassing Error # 2:

The authors falsely claim that the NASA, NOAA and Hadley CRU GAST records do not properly take into account factors such as urban heat islands and changes in the technologies used to measure land and ocean temperatures over time. They also falsely claim that each of the datasets has selectively biased results in order to exaggerate an upward trend in temperature.

In fact, it is well-established that these datasets do account for these and other factors needed to ensure consistent, comparable and accurate results. Researchers have repeatedly found that the methods used to account for these issues do not affect GAST records to any substantial extent. The size of global surface temperature increases swamps the noise associated with these known and well-studied factors.

Embarrassing Error #3:

The authors cherry-pick some examples in the US as “evidence” that they use to try and refute the well-documented increase in the global average temperature.

Of course, the NOAA, NASA, and CRU datasets include these regional variations. Bottom line: there is a pronounced increase in the global average surface temperature since pre-industrial times and such regional variations are to be expected.

Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) trend between 1880-2016, annual record. Temperature change is reported relative to the long-term annual average (1910-2000). Source: NOAA

The near-complete lack of references to other scientific studies that examine their spurious claims and the extent to which the authors of this document take information out of context is, quite frankly, embarrassing.

Elected officials have a responsibility to reject such poor quality work, and instead rely on their own cornerstone institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, established by Abraham Lincoln and Congress in 1863, to provide “independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.”

As Ben Santer and colleagues pointed out in a recent Washington Post op-ed, “Only the most robust findings survive peer review and form the basis of today’s scientific consensus.” The peer review process exists to prevent such documents as the one at hand here from making their way into the public domain and being confused with real science.

Now keep telling us how a whole field of science is wrong because of a literal handful of work that is not even peer reviewed and generally laughed at.

But you didn't debunk it. You just added quotes from the same Snopes article from a science journalist. You're implying the journalist is more qualified to interpret the data... based on what?

Now keep telling us how a whole field of science is wrong because of a literal handful of work that is not even peer reviewed and generally laughed at.

Please show me a study beyond the 97% people agree that human activity and carbon emissions have an effect on climate change. Because that is not what people are mostly discussing when we are considering today's alarmist/skeptic arguments. Who is saying the entire field of science is wrong? Its a debate over the precision of measuring climate, predictions, and man-made impact. The "crisis" is far from fact, its a theory, one that could be considered heavy speculation. It's far from a consensus.

The fact that your trying to argue against someone making a different argument that the entire field is wrong is a straw man. Its not the argument I made. Its not even the argument trump makes.

Again... the larger portion of my argument is the reality of what is to come isn't going to be stopped without any equal or greater impact on our prosperity. It's going to cost us excessively to make changes... then there is anywhere from negligible to high risk just doing nothing. The worst case scenario is doing something and having a negligible impact because other factors that can cause warming, for instance, there is evidence to suggest the Roman period was warmer, with fewer carbon emissions...

Science is a myth to republicans

Once GOP consider it a crisis it is way to late.

@waahahah: yawn, you cons just dont listen. I'm fairly open minded and skeptical about things I hear. It's healthy to be that way and ask questions. There's a difference between asking questions and spreading unverifiable talking points, propoganda.

Climate science isn't a young field, infact climate change was known since 1910 when a famous scientist by the name of Arrhenius , the same guy who helped build law of thermodynamics, suggested that carbon dioxide was a green house gas. So approximately 110 years ago, that's how long we've known, and the evidence has been building. At this point, the science and evidence backing climate change is rock solid. The questions have been asked and answered by tens of thousands of experts in the past 50 years, by every angle you can think of.

You aren't a scientist, you have no scientific background, no research in the field, not even a STEM degree. You know nothing, you aren't qualified to speak. And you lose all credibility when you post a source that's funded by the fossil fuel industry. On top of that, the paper wasn't peer reviewed in a journal but a word press blog. It's sketchy af and one has to question how you can accept this as even real evidence.

climate crisis is an unverifiable talking point. The world warming, or getting colder is simply a little fact.

Climate science isn't a young field, infact climate change was known since 1910 when a famous scientist by the name of Arrhenius , the same guy who helped build law of thermodynamics, suggested that carbon dioxide was a green house gas. So approximately 110 years ago, that's how long we've known, and the evidence has been building. At this point, the science and evidence backing climate change is rock solid. The questions have been asked and answered by tens of thousands of experts in the past 50 years, by every angle you can think of.

Are you suggesting the idea that CO2 being a greenhouse gas represents all of climate science? That's a ridiculous idea. One in which no one is arguing against. You can say the same stupid thing about most sciences... but with technology the level of understanding and clarity has expanded in recent years.

Climate science today is nothing like climate science in 1910. The first climate model was in the late 1960s... Building more and better ways to get a more accurate view of the earth's climate has been an ongoing effort. In the 70s people weren't sure if was a net warming or net cooling.

It wasn't until the 1990s that a consensus started to form that humans were causing some form of warming. Understanding the correlation between climate change and extreme weather events is still relatively new but rapidly expanding.

You aren't a scientist, you have no scientific background, no research in the field, not even a STEM degree. You know nothing, you aren't qualified to speak. And you lose all credibility when you post a source that's funded by the fossil fuel industry. On top of that, the paper wasn't peer reviewed in a journal but a word press blog. It's sketchy af and one has to question how you can accept this as even real evidence.

Pot calling the kettle black. I've posted multiple links in this thread of people criticizing instrumentation or accuracy of data.

I have yet to see any data that shows a consensus beyond the one fact that has been parroted over and over again, human activity is causing warming. Where there isn't a consensus is the rate and risk of the impact. Which I've never contradicted the consensus. I've said that the crisis is manufactured... to which there is no consensus.

I mean the greening of the planets thanks to human CO2 emissions which was only discovered in the last 10 years. If you think climate science is completely mature your kidding yourself.

But I literally debunked it.

1. You lied and said it was peer reviewed, but it wasn't.

2.

Embarrassing Error # 1:

The authors erroneously claim that the NASA, NOAA, and Hadley CRU global average surface temperature records all produce the same results simply because they use many of the same land-based weather stations as sources.

These datasets incorporate information from thousands of individual weather stations, ocean measurements and satellite data. Each of these datasets incorporate as many high-quality temperature data sources as possible, including many in common. Then, each dataset is constructed and analyzed using different methods. Why? Because this is what scientists do to be confident about their results. Scientists test and re-test datasets to see if – using different methods and approaches – they get the same results as their colleagues working independently. I would not want to fly in a plane that had only been inspected once – would you?

Embarrassing Error # 2:

The authors falsely claim that the NASA, NOAA and Hadley CRU GAST records do not properly take into account factors such as urban heat islands and changes in the technologies used to measure land and ocean temperatures over time. They also falsely claim that each of the datasets has selectively biased results in order to exaggerate an upward trend in temperature.

In fact, it is well-established that these datasets do account for these and other factors needed to ensure consistent, comparable and accurate results. Researchers have repeatedly found that the methods used to account for these issues do not affect GAST records to any substantial extent. The size of global surface temperature increases swamps the noise associated with these known and well-studied factors.

Embarrassing Error #3:

The authors cherry-pick some examples in the US as “evidence” that they use to try and refute the well-documented increase in the global average temperature.

Of course, the NOAA, NASA, and CRU datasets include these regional variations. Bottom line: there is a pronounced increase in the global average surface temperature since pre-industrial times and such regional variations are to be expected.

Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) trend between 1880-2016, annual record. Temperature change is reported relative to the long-term annual average (1910-2000). Source: NOAA

The near-complete lack of references to other scientific studies that examine their spurious claims and the extent to which the authors of this document take information out of context is, quite frankly, embarrassing.

Elected officials have a responsibility to reject such poor quality work, and instead rely on their own cornerstone institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, established by Abraham Lincoln and Congress in 1863, to provide “independent, objective advice to the nation on matters related to science and technology.”

As Ben Santer and colleagues pointed out in a recent Washington Post op-ed, “Only the most robust findings survive peer review and form the basis of today’s scientific consensus.” The peer review process exists to prevent such documents as the one at hand here from making their way into the public domain and being confused with real science.

Trump and the guy he quoted don't agree with this. That's what the thread is about.

I didn't lie. It claimed that it was peer reviewed though and there are peer reviewers associated with it.

You didn't debunk it. You posted an opinion piece on it. You also didn't understand the point I was making with it, as there isn't a scientific consensus on all the data.

Trump and the guy he quoted don't agree with this. That's what the thread is about.

You replied to me. So stop arguing *my* points with anti trump rhetoric. Its a straw man. Trump has never stated global warming in its totality is false. Just like terminology used by the left "climate deniers".. it doesn't' actually mean people are denying the existence of a climate.

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

Well I stand corrected on 1 tiny minute detail that had nothing to do with our conversation or the topic. Good job... but like every time you responded to me you ignored 99% of what was said.

It's disappointing that in this current time, people continue to deny climate change and argue using their own pseudo science as opposed to the peer reviewed scientific literature that supports it.

Nobody is denying climate change any more. And if they are they are a super fringe opinion.

1. Donald Trump does.

2. Patrick Moore does.

3. 30%-40% of Republicans still do.

That's not a fringe.

Many still deny climate change and agw.

No, they don't. Or 100% of Democrats believe people don't in climate because they mince words, which is ridiculous. Global warming is a scientific fact, the dangers are speculation.

You should tell this to a large chunk of Republicans. They are Climate Change and Anthropological Global Warming deniers. Including Trump.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/231530/global-warming-concern-steady-despite-partisan-shifts.aspx

https://www.monmouth.edu/polling-institute/reports/monmouthpoll_us_112918/

64% Believe in CC. Around 40% for AGW. Fortunately a steadily increasing number, but this means the rest are certainly not "fringe" numbers.

P.S. Here are some Trump quotes.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/trump-global-warming/index.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/wild-donald-trump-quotes/13/

13. "It's really cold outside, they are calling it a major freeze, weeks ahead of normal. Man, we could use a big fat dose of global warming!"

14. "Wow, 25 degrees below zero, record cold and snow spell. Global warming anyone?"

15. "Record low temperatures and massive amounts of snow. Where the hell is GLOBAL WARMING?"

16. "I believe in clean air. Immaculate air. But I don't believe in climate change."

17. "I'm not a believer in man-made global warming. It could be warming, and it's going to start to cool at some point. And you know, in the early, in the 1920s, people talked about global cooling...They thought the Earth was cooling. Now, it's global warming...But the problem we have, and if you look at our energy costs, and all of the things that we're doing to solve a problem that I don't think in any major fashion exists."

He's a AGW denier for certain (which is included in climate denial), he's mostly a denier on the facts of Climate Change in general as well.

Link 1 study that actually backs your claim.

From the monmoth study:

Do you think that the world’s climate is undergoing a change that is causing more extreme weather patterns and the rise of sea levels, or is this not happening?

78% agree.

Your claim that 40% or most Republicans don't believe in global warming isn't even backed up by your data. First this 78% is global warming producing extreme weather effects. Which is BEYOND global warming.. So nearly 80% of people think global warming is having extreme whether effects.

And thanks to people using sloppy words... most people like you.. think climate change and global warming are the same as the world turning into an inferno in 60 years. So you can get other surveys that totally contradict this one.